Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fire up your Ignore List, because you're no better than the terrorists.
You'll have to do better than that if you want to punch your ticket to the list, dave.
In some ways I have a great respect for the terrorists. They're willing to do whatever is necessary to advance their cause. I respect that mindset. They understand that "rules" may have a place in the boxing ring, but they do not have one on the battlefield. The only point in a war is to destroy your enemy utterly. I can't remember the exact quote, but the line from Conan the Barbarian about "what is good in life" comes to mind.
The rest of us who are civilized know that wanton, wholesale murder is really not a good thing...nor is it necessary.
If you've ever worn the uniform, you'll be familiar with the tenet of Proportionality from the Law of Armed Conflict. If you're a dumbass kid who plays Warhammer, you'll say stupid stuff like you have been.
The rest of us who are civilized know that wanton, wholesale murder is really not a good thing...nor is it necessary.
It's probably not a good thing, but I'd disagree on the necessity much of the time.
If you've ever worn the uniform, you'll be familiar with the tenet of Proportionality from the Law of Armed Conflict. If you're a dumbass kid who plays Warhammer, you'll say stupid stuff like you have been.
Unfortunately the US Army didn't like my birthmark or my right knee, so that ended my hopes of serving very quickly towards the end of high school. I don't play Warhammer or anything like that. I am a student of history in general and military history to a lesser degree. More of my focus is on medieval times, but some of it is on modern military history as well.
I am aware of the concept of Proportionality. I just disagree with it.
A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.
By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".
As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.
However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.
No, a better (and more truthful) way of saying it, is that since Vietnam, the "chain of command" would , if the facts were discovered, throw the offending party to the liberal media (and the rest of the liberal "true believers") like a sacrificial lamb to cover its own politically-motivated arse, a "correct political attitude" being a necessity for the career-minded officer in today's "politically correct" service. Personally, I am glad the ROE were somewhat more "flexible" in my time; I never had to exercise such an option, but I was glad to know it was there. Somehow, I think I liked things better the old way.
What time and place was that?
Unless I missed something, it's never been appropriate to shoot innocent civilians.
And, make no mistake, that's exactly what this scenario was. This team had absolutely no proof that this guy would tell the Taliban their whereabouts and they certainly had no proof that he was a combatant.
The act would be indefensible. It has nothing to do with the "liberal media". That's just a bullshit deflection from the real fact of the matter, the team got compromised and a shit storm ensued.
No, a better (and more truthful) way of saying it, is that since Vietnam, the "chain of command" would , if the facts were discovered, throw the offending party to the liberal media (and the rest of the liberal "true believers") like a sacrificial lamb to cover its own politically-motivated arse, a "correct political attitude" being a necessity for the career-minded officer in today's "politically correct" service. Personally, I am glad the ROE were somewhat more "flexible" in my time; I never had to exercise such an option, but I was glad to know it was there. Somehow, I think I liked things better the old way.
What time and place was that?
Unless I missed something, it's never been appropriate to shoot innocent civilians.
And, make no mistake, that's exactly what this scenario was. This team had absolutely no proof that this guy would tell the Taliban their whereabouts and they certainly had no proof that he was a combatant.
The act would be indefensible. It has nothing to do with the "liberal media". That's just a bullshit deflection from the real fact of the matter, the team got compromised and a shit storm ensued.
The ROE for some missions in Vietnam allowed for killing anyone who might interfere with the mission, or compromise the safety of the detachment involved. Reference (among others) the actions of Lt. (later Senator) Bob Kerrey and his SEAL Team at Thanh Phong, RVN, Feb., 1969. (This is the incident one of Kerrey's men described very differently from Kerrey's account years later-other members of the detachment seem to remember it differently). In any case, I would not question the decisions Kerrey made, or the orders he gave, one way or the other; I have no way of knowing exactly what he heard and/or saw. However, in a similar situation as that described, I might well have done the same, under the same ROE. The "civilians" they killed were likely VC sympathizers. This was not out of the ordinary, nor is it anything most of us at the time would have lost any sleep over. Kerrey reported the incident; it was determined at the time that he acted within the scope of his orders and the ROE. Kerrey remarked years later that he did not recall any lectures on the Laws of War; I would say that was fairly typical for officers at that time. I cannot remember the subject ever being discussed, nor do I recall any superior ever telling us to "be compassionate". The label "free fire zone" meant any Vietnamese encountered therein was presumed hostile, and could be engaged should a commander feel they were a threat. That judgment was rarely questioned. The usual advice was "use your own discretion". There was no requirement that we "prove they were hostile"; it would have been up to whoever questioned the action to "prove" they were not. In plain language, if we were compromised, it was generally permissible to waste whatever or whoever was doing the "compromising"-problem solved. If you insist on knowing whether I personally gave a damn, then or since, the answer is "NO!" I never felt compelled to kill anyone who was not armed, but had I found that necessary, I would have done so. Different war, different time, different mindset, different training. The way you were trained is a direct result. We can argue all day over whether it is a good result, or an unfortunate one, but it is current military policy. So far as I am concerned, I believe that policy and the accompanying training to that effect is politically motivated. You and the modern army may not approve of the way we "throat slitters" operated in Vietnam, but I will tell you that militarily, it worked, and to me, that is the only thing that matters.
No....John Kerry had a lot to do with it, also........Scumbag subversive piece o' shit has much american blood on his hands......Same goes for Jane Fonda, and a whole host of other subversive liberal pieces o' shit.What time and place was that?
Unless I missed something, it's never been appropriate to shoot innocent civilians.
And, make no mistake, that's exactly what this scenario was. This team had absolutely no proof that this guy would tell the Taliban their whereabouts and they certainly had no proof that he was a combatant.
The act would be indefensible. It has nothing to do with the "liberal media". That's just a bullshit deflection from the real fact of the matter, the team got compromised and a shit storm ensued.
The ROE for some missions in Vietnam allowed for killing anyone who might interfere with the mission, or compromise the safety of the detachment involved. Reference (among others) the actions of Lt. (later Senator) Bob Kerrey and his SEAL Team at Thanh Phong, RVN, Feb., 1969. (This is the incident one of Kerrey's men described very differently from Kerrey's account years later-other members of the detachment seem to remember it differently). In any case, I would not question the decisions Kerrey made, or the orders he gave, one way or the other; I have no way of knowing exactly what he heard and/or saw. However, in a similar situation as that described, I might well have done the same, under the same ROE. The "civilians" they killed were likely VC sympathizers. This was not out of the ordinary, nor is it anything most of us at the time would have lost any sleep over. Kerrey reported the incident; it was determined at the time that he acted within the scope of his orders and the ROE. Kerrey remarked years later that he did not recall any lectures on the Laws of War; I would say that was fairly typical for officers at that time. I cannot remember the subject ever being discussed, nor do I recall any superior ever telling us to "be compassionate". The label "free fire zone" meant any Vietnamese encountered therein was presumed hostile, and could be engaged should a commander feel they were a threat. That judgment was rarely questioned. The usual advice was "use your own discretion". There was no requirement that we "prove they were hostile"; it would have been up to whoever questioned the action to "prove" they were not. In plain language, if we were compromised, it was generally permissible to waste whatever or whoever was doing the "compromising"-problem solved. If you insist on knowing whether I personally gave a damn, then or since, the answer is "NO!" I never felt compelled to kill anyone who was not armed, but had I found that necessary, I would have done so. Different war, different time, different mindset, different training. The way you were trained is a direct result. We can argue all day over whether it is a good result, or an unfortunate one, but it is current military policy. So far as I am concerned, I believe that policy and the accompanying training to that effect is politically motivated. You and the modern army may not approve of the way we "throat slitters" operated in Vietnam, but I will tell you that militarily, it worked, and to me, that is the only thing that matters.
If it "worked" militarily, then we wouldn't have had to pull out in 1975. Or are you going to tell me that was all Walter Cronkite's fault?
The ROE exists for tactical reasons. Political correctness have nothing to do with it. If we could "win" by turning the area in the the fabled "free fire zones" of Viet Nam, we would do it. History has shown that to be a counterproductive counterinsurgency policy.
I still have my doubts that the "free fire zone" was so loose that it would allow you to kill a civilian that walked up on your hide site. Simply because people got away with it doesn't make it policy.
No....John Kerry had a lot to do with it, also........Scumbag subversive piece o' shit has much american blood on his hands......Same goes for Jane Fonda, and a whole host of other subversive liberal pieces o' shit.The ROE for some missions in Vietnam allowed for killing anyone who might interfere with the mission, or compromise the safety of the detachment involved. Reference (among others) the actions of Lt. (later Senator) Bob Kerrey and his SEAL Team at Thanh Phong, RVN, Feb., 1969. (This is the incident one of Kerrey's men described very differently from Kerrey's account years later-other members of the detachment seem to remember it differently). In any case, I would not question the decisions Kerrey made, or the orders he gave, one way or the other; I have no way of knowing exactly what he heard and/or saw. However, in a similar situation as that described, I might well have done the same, under the same ROE. The "civilians" they killed were likely VC sympathizers. This was not out of the ordinary, nor is it anything most of us at the time would have lost any sleep over. Kerrey reported the incident; it was determined at the time that he acted within the scope of his orders and the ROE. Kerrey remarked years later that he did not recall any lectures on the Laws of War; I would say that was fairly typical for officers at that time. I cannot remember the subject ever being discussed, nor do I recall any superior ever telling us to "be compassionate". The label "free fire zone" meant any Vietnamese encountered therein was presumed hostile, and could be engaged should a commander feel they were a threat. That judgment was rarely questioned. The usual advice was "use your own discretion". There was no requirement that we "prove they were hostile"; it would have been up to whoever questioned the action to "prove" they were not. In plain language, if we were compromised, it was generally permissible to waste whatever or whoever was doing the "compromising"-problem solved. If you insist on knowing whether I personally gave a damn, then or since, the answer is "NO!" I never felt compelled to kill anyone who was not armed, but had I found that necessary, I would have done so. Different war, different time, different mindset, different training. The way you were trained is a direct result. We can argue all day over whether it is a good result, or an unfortunate one, but it is current military policy. So far as I am concerned, I believe that policy and the accompanying training to that effect is politically motivated. You and the modern army may not approve of the way we "throat slitters" operated in Vietnam, but I will tell you that militarily, it worked, and to me, that is the only thing that matters.
If it "worked" militarily, then we wouldn't have had to pull out in 1975. Or are you going to tell me that was all Walter Cronkite's fault?
The ROE exists for tactical reasons. Political correctness have nothing to do with it. If we could "win" by turning the area in the the fabled "free fire zones" of Viet Nam, we would do it. History has shown that to be a counterproductive counterinsurgency policy.
I still have my doubts that the "free fire zone" was so loose that it would allow you to kill a civilian that walked up on your hide site. Simply because people got away with it doesn't make it policy.
It's pretty sad when the enemy at home is as evil as the enemy abroad.
I've always seen that as a convenient excuse that ignores the larger reality of why we lost in Viet Nam. The fact is, we were there for over a decade before the war became unpopular at home.
