What would Patton or MacArthur have advised these brave men to do? Their gut was right but their decision was influenced by events back home...What would you have done?

this is just ONE example of what your fathers were like.

http://www.mishalov.com/HowardJimmie.html
http://www.mclm.com/tohonor/jhoward.html

Those people were compromised no matter what they did, but they could have had the same effect by just sitting on them.

I think my father's special ops unit was less inclined to worry about how the media would react when operating behind enemy lines. These guys decision, by the soldier's own account in his book, was largely influenced to avoid bad press and all the negative spin that would cast them as "murderers", etc.

Please do not infer that I am suggesting in any way that my father's era special forces men were worse or better or anything of the sort. To serve in special forces in any era is a badge of honor that few can achieve.

I offer this account for consideration of the notion that today's soldier is much more influenced by the media, opposition groups and the probability of a JAG inquisition than those of yesteryear. And sometimes that influence has deadly consequences... Can one really oppose the war yet support the troops in this day without some culpability for soldiers second guessing themselves on battlefield? And is that a good thing or a bad thing? Just asking...

my dad said if they the same people behind the camera then as they do today, we'd be speaking japanese and he's right

BTW, They're called Murtha-Crats

that has to do more with proficiency than sheer bravery, although Hathcock was certainly known to have a pair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

The more amazing thing is that he had a LOT of competition in his skills.  He was just the best of many.

Those of you who think his record is being beaten need to remember that firing a .30 is not like a .50.

So don't be thinking that this generation is the first and only - unless it's possibly the first and most self-absorbed.  Earlier generations made it their own responsibility to read and learn, and didn't wait for somebody to come hand them  prepackaged minds.

wouldn't have changed anything.  They'd have still been compromised.

What I'd have done is sit on them, ie. tie them face down.  If a fight broke out, they're at risk.

The idea that democracy compromises Americans requires us to regard democracy as an expendable value.  If that is true, WTF are we fighting for?

The idea that killing is its own end and logic requires you to lose track of the morality of defense.  Do we really want to be people who start pointless or needless fights?

unlike Republicans.  He rates 2nd guessing, because he's been there.

Ever heard of My Lai?  The Army's finest moment was when a soldier stopped the massacre by putting himself in the line of fire between the civilians and Calley.

Killing people is easy.  Protecting them is harder.
Combat is not a fucking video game that can be reloaded.

yeah, so he should know better. last time i had guns pointed at me (which was'nt that long ago) I had not only my safety but the safety of 6 kids hanging in the balance. I made the right call and everyone has gone their merry way but everytime I hear about cops finding a walkin cooler full of headshots I think about what COULD have happened otherwise.

Point is, you never know, and until the facts are known, it's best to STFU. Murtha, and the rest of the BushHating murtha-Crats like Urethera Durbin can't wait to wail to the press over mistakes and missteps for the express purpose of making political points.

-- Modified on 10/13/2007 11:17:58 AM

so just STFU.

pffft. you mean like that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff?

yeah right

-- Modified on 10/13/2007 11:20:48 AM

this seal team.

It wasn't the fact that they couldn't get fire support or extracted in 2 hours.  It was the Geneva Convention - those fucking Swiss - and their fear of the press.

It's been pointed out that no matter what their choice was, they would still be compromised.  If those farmers disappeared, they'd be just as given away.

So what you're trying to do is convince us that because of this, we should just toss the constitution.

Oh hell yeah.  They're not fighting for the constitution, they're fighting for the fun of it.

You're a political pimp.  But at least you're a cheap one.

And it's always with some combination of just enough truth to be worth reading and just enough blind putdown of the your entire point to make it unworthy of reading.

Ah, the P&R board.  

come on MSD show me your keen intellect and explain how perfectly logic it is for ASwiper to ask the question he asked based on what I said....

i'll wait here while you think about it....

or you can stfu.....?

-- Modified on 10/13/2007 3:53:53 PM

-- Modified on 10/13/2007 3:54:38 PM

or maybe you do already

look over here!!!

did it occur to you that the 2 hours they DID have may have been enough if they popped the farmers, farmers who might not have been expected by till fuckin wednesday?????

as it was, they ran back and grabbed up 140 of their buddies, what maybe 20-30 minutes.???

sounds like you don't think too well

and everything to do with the fact that these brave young men knew at a time when they had to make a life or death decision that not everyone back home would have their back,

that Murtha-crats in fact would be stabbing it

and they were right.

and if they farted, they'd be shot for escape?

Look, if you want to play politics with the military, you have to be a lot better at it.  Like, some RL experience, eh?

yuck yuck

there it is

There is no such thing as free speech.... it (your freedom of speech) was bought and paid for by the blood and lives of others who went before - and if we do not pay the maintenance fee, we will loose it.