Lack of Ethics and the NG should shoot back.

[Wingwiper]

I promise to defend my country from ALL enemies, both foriegn and domestic.

So why shouldn't the NG be allowed to fire back if fired upon?


http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr05/0,4670,PreserveShootings,00.html

 

[vellnueve]

They should fire back with the 120s.

 

[Wingwiper]

I don't think the problem would exsist much longer if they did.

 

[vellnueve]

Probably not. People like that give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[Jose]

This is the same guy who said the world would end if the Royal Navy forcibly protected its sailors against state-sanctioned aggression?

Which is it?

 

[dwarven1]

Hey, if you get shot at, you should be able to shoot back. Maybe they could equip the tanks with Boomerang to help identify the "snipers".

 

[Ripach]

Nothing pisses me off more than shooters spoon feeding ammo to the Anti's.

 

[Mikey]

It is all ready hard enough for us and asses like these just make it so much harder. And if nothing else show some respect for the people who serve our country.

 

[Wingwiper]

Jose

This is the same guy who said the world would end if the Royal Navy forcibly protected its sailors against state-sanctioned aggression?

Which is it?

I beg your pardon???? "Do NOT fire back,unless fired upon' is S.O.P. This only defends what I said, but that was another thread. If Iran was fired upon, then Iran would have escalated the problem much more. Geez! Iran would not have seen it as, you say, "state-sanctioned aggression" they were seeing it as DEFENSE. Two different COUNTRIES, one country currently at war with the other country's neighbor. This article is talking about within the BORDERS of the SAME Country.
Which is it you say? Read posts slower and maybe they will make more sense to you.