Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely disgusting, but not surprising coming from West. I wonder what he is going to do once he is out of Congress next year, once that crazy map goes away.
I wondered about who filmed the event because they don't all have the same kind of look on their faces. I really think someone who wanted to get at those men did the filming. Maybe even some political minded person.
Do you know that the words "War is hell" are supposed to have been first said by General Sherman to southerners who were so unhappy about how he marched through Georgia leaving a wide swath of nothingness behind him? Of course you know that when you go that deep in enemy country and are unable to leave people along the way to protect your back side it is very necessary. Back then armies foraged for much of their food and food for their animals and he didn't want to take a chance on a following force being able to procure said food easily.
I am very sorry that I just can't see your point but will admit that I am not trying any harder than you are to see mine.
My points are pretty obvious.
1. "War is hell" can be used to justify anything that happen in wartime, and is a stupid defense of a stupid action by soldiers who will and should be punished.
2. Despite what West says, soldiers are not immune from criticism from those who are not physically involved in the conflict.
I don't see your point because beyond "Allen West is right," you don't have one.
Besides, as Americans we used to hold ourselves to a higher standard; I suppose that's fallen by the wayside.
Do you now see why most of the men from WW II don't talk about what they did in combat? It just may be that they don't want to tell things like this about themselves or anybody else.
I wanted this man to run for President in 2012 and now I really want him to run in 2016 no matter who wins this year. He speaks his mind at all times and doesn't really worry about how others around him think. When I apply what he said to what Hillary Clinton has said over and over about this situation I see more and more reason for him to be our SECOND black President.
I think it is appropriate for one to express opinions on things, even if one has not experienced them. If that were not the case, there would be about ten posts on this website.
Of course, one can understand where one lacks experience and approach the situation with the appropriate humility. With these guys, I don't think they should face court martial, and I can guess at the stresses they must be under - but I also think that any sane, rational-minded person would recognize that their actions are detrimental to the mission and should be discouraged. That's all. And I think there is nothing wrong with expressing that.
I wanted this man to run for President in 2012 and now I really want him to run in 2016 no matter who wins this year. He speaks his mind at all times and doesn't really worry about how others around him think. When I apply what he said to what Hillary Clinton has said over and over about this situation I see more and more reason for him to be our SECOND black President.
Marcus Luttrell watched what were as close to brothers as a guy could have be slaughtered by the Taliban. Did he lose it? Why don't you hear about guys as well trained as Navy SEALs doing crap like this? Because they are the best of the best and have the training behind them. Hence my point some soldiers are cut out for war and some are not. Don't sit there and excuse this behavior as some sort of default characteristic of war and US soldiers or you are disrespecting and offending A LOT of guys who have A HELL OF A LOT more courage, commmittment and, bravery than you could ever imagine old man. This isn't WWI that was 85+ years ago. The soldiers of today are not the soldiers of that era. Like I said we have the best trained most professional fighting forces in the world. And 99% of them behave as such even in the most dire circumstances of war.
And that Czech immigrant probably never would have thought about "therapy" or admit he was suffering from PTSD and could have gone on to beat his wife as a life long drunk and abuse his kids. Gimme a break you are clueless.
Van Doubek didn't drink, at all and he never beat his wife. I guess you don't know how recent that PTSD stuff is. It surely wasn't considered in either of our World Wars. I may be a bit less clueless than you are. That is the brea I will give you.
Yes it's a bigger deal BECAUSE it's so trivial and so silly. Atleast cutting off their ears or burning them on stakes would make more sense from a "war is hell" perspective. But urinating on them like drunk frat boys? Idiots.
I didn't say they weren't idiots, but it really isn't that big of a deal. Again think of what the enemy is doing to our captured soldiers and fallen soldiers. Nothing compared to this.
A person that is not capable of digesting their fellow soldiers' death without freaking out and behaving like a neanderthal, should not become a soldier in the first place. But many people are lured into the armed forces without realizing what might lie ahead of them. In their need for cannon fodder the army obviously doesn't conduct thorough psychological entrance tests.
Interestingly, there have been various accounts of soldiers totally misbehaving at home, mistreating fellow soldiers in their home barracks, far from any wars. I guess it is that entire hierarchy and violence crap that makes people abuse their position of power.
If I believed that (and I don't), you old neighbor would of course be a war criminal, a bit of a psycho and criminally foolish. You effin' WANT to make surrender an attractive alternative to fighting to the death.
Same thing with the Afghanistan event - you don't desecrate the enemy dead, because it encourages the rest of the enemy forces to fight harder for their revenge.
Old Van was really worried about being called a war criminal. He enlisted to kill Germans, legally, and felt he had to get back to it. I might add that an old German who came here in the mid-twenties had many fights with Van over that war. They were both dragged kicking and screaming to the wedding of their children who married each other.
Your modern thinking about war criminals, psychos and the like is more modern thinking than those people knew about back then. Oh well Van has been dead more than 50 years so maybe his criminality isn't so serious today.
Speaking of surrender, I guess you haven't read a lot about our troops in the Asian part of WW II. For some reason it seemed that few Japanese were willing to surrender. Maybe it was because they were told how evil those Americans were. Those who told me anything about that island fighting seemed to think that what the Japanese did to the defendants of Corregidor was what they could expect. You do know quite a bit about the Bataan Death March, don't you?
Besides, as Americans we used to hold ourselves to a higher standard; I suppose that's fallen by the wayside.
Good link. The Marines' behavior also breaks the Laws of War, specifically the 1st Geneva Convention:
Article 15, my bolding:
Quote:
Art. 15. At all times, and particularly after an engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled. ...
- and Article 17:
Quote:
Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.
Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.
They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, ...
If people could agree on this in 1864, perhaps it's not too much to ask in 2011?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
