|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 10, 2015 20:39:11 GMT -5
Bob, wrong again, they kicked him in the head and elsewhere but not in the desert. regards, your rational friend Oops, missed that one. I was most worried about the kick in the nuts! Yes, that one was so obvious that you couldn't missed seeing it!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 11, 2015 1:48:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 11, 2015 2:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 20:55:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 21:11:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 21:12:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 2:05:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 8:32:47 GMT -5
Oops, sorry. Wrong clip. That was the one where they shot friendlies, as well as the children, and laughed when they drove over the bodies in the street. And there were no consequences to the killers, and no apparent interest on the part of either the military or the civilian government to provide consequences. Maybe the rules of war don't apply to killing "friendlies" ??????? I'm imagining they treat the enemies more harshly, assuming they know the difference between their friends and their enemies. But probably not -- they didn't even know the difference between a camera and a gun. Oddly enough the majority of American military casualties in the Iraq War (according to Pentagon statistics) were from "friendly" fire. So much for the rules of war, huh. Maybe it would be an improvement if we taught our policemen the rules of war -- the guy in North Charleston may still be alive. :) Have you never made a mistake identifying a video camera from a RPG while sitting in the open door of a gunship? They look pretty close and one can shoot videos and the other can shoot gunships. Friendlies in a war zone is always a subjective call. Your knowing that the clip was of a photographer and not being in any danger of being shot at certainly makes it easy for you to look at the scene with 20/20 hindsight. But none of this answers the question of your claim that "...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"? They do have to answer. Perhaps not every time but there are sanctions and the soldiers do have to answer if they have not followed the rules of engagement. I am sure you can trot out more examples of the horrors of war but you cannot deny that soldiers are responsible for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 17:13:32 GMT -5
Oops, sorry. Wrong clip. That was the one where they shot friendlies, as well as the children, and laughed when they drove over the bodies in the street. And there were no consequences to the killers, and no apparent interest on the part of either the military or the civilian government to provide consequences. Maybe the rules of war don't apply to killing "friendlies" ? I'm imagining they treat the enemies more harshly, assuming they know the difference between their friends and their enemies. But probably not -- they didn't even know the difference between a camera and a gun. Oddly enough the majority of American military casualties in the Iraq War (according to Pentagon statistics) were from "friendly" fire. So much for the rules of war, huh. Maybe it would be an improvement if we taught our policemen the rules of war -- the guy in North Charleston may still be alive. Have you never made a mistake identifying a video camera from a RPG while sitting in the open door of a gunship? They look pretty close and one can shoot videos and the other can shoot gunships. View AttachmentView AttachmentFriendlies in a war zone is always a subjective call. Your knowing that the clip was of a photographer and not being in any danger of being shot at certainly makes it easy for you to look at the scene with 20/20 hindsight. But none of this answers the question of your claim that "...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"? They do have to answer. Perhaps not every time but there are sanctions and the soldiers do have to answer if they have not followed the rules of engagement. I am sure you can trot out more examples of the horrors of war but you cannot deny that soldiers are responsible for their actions. How stereotypically American of you!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 17:52:08 GMT -5
How stereotypically American of you!!!! And how typical of you to simply ignore the fact that you misspoke, or were simply wrong, when you said "...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 18:10:57 GMT -5
How stereotypically American of you!!!! And how typical of you to simply ignore the fact that you misspoke, or were simply wrong, when you said "...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"?I meant exactly what I said ... on both matters ... and not without good reason. Period. And I already know all the rhetoric you have to give me. End of discussion, okay.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 18:13:21 GMT -5
Wow, a response like that would make anyone think you were a schoolteacher Bob.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 18:17:31 GMT -5
Wow, a response like that would make anyone think you were a schoolteacher Bob. You're smarter than I thought. Actually, I learned to talk that was with the workers I had to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 18:22:29 GMT -5
Wow, a response like that would make anyone think you were a schoolteacher Bob. Many school teachers have difficulty admitting they are wrong. It is like the talk show hosts that simply hang up on their callers when it becomes obvious that the host has made a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 19:51:37 GMT -5
Wow, a response like that would make anyone think you were a schoolteacher Bob. Many school teachers have difficulty admitting they are wrong. It is like the talk show hosts that simply hang up on their callers when it becomes obvious that the host has made a mistake. I didn't say I was right. I was disagreeing with you on your moral standard.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 19:56:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 13, 2015 20:15:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 20:37:32 GMT -5
Actually those men were not in the American military. They were American civilians who were working for the private Blackwater (American) company which had contracted with the US government to provide security for the US military "entourage". -- or as in this case, they cleared the path through the crowd so the military could pass through. But you're confirming my point about prosecutions nonetheless. This Blackwater indiscretion appeared on video too, so something had to be done about it. How many countries hire civilians to care for their troops in war zones?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 21:16:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 21:30:56 GMT -5
Many school teachers have difficulty admitting they are wrong. It is like the talk show hosts that simply hang up on their callers when it becomes obvious that the host has made a mistake. I didn't say I was right. I was disagreeing with you on your moral standard. I didn't say you said you were right. And I made no moral claim. You stated that -- in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing. It is an incorrect statement. You can throw in as many other points as you wish for diversion and it will still be an incorrect statement.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2015 21:49:31 GMT -5
Actually those men were not in the American military. They were American civilians who were working for the private Blackwater (American) company which had contracted with the US government to provide security for the US military "entourage". :) -- or as in this case, they cleared the path through the crowd so the military could pass through. But you're confirming my point about prosecutions nonetheless. This Blackwater indiscretion appeared on video too, so something had to be done about it. How many countries hire civilians to care for their troops in war zones? (rofl) Do you really want a list? Britain, United Nations, Biafra, Sierra Leone, Libya, Australia, etc. You could check and see who DynCorp, Triple Canopy, or Executive Outcomes have worked supporting. Not sure why you are laughing.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 23:39:07 GMT -5
I didn't say I was right. I was disagreeing with you on your moral standard. I didn't say you said you were right. And I didn't say that you said that I said I was right. I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did. All I said was that I disagreed with your moral standard. Well, the man I used to work with told me that was true. He told me that he shot a whole lot of people in Iraq and when he came back home he got a medal for it. Maybe he was lying.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 13, 2015 23:45:09 GMT -5
Actually those men were not in the American military. They were American civilians who were working for the private Blackwater (American) company which had contracted with the US government to provide security for the US military "entourage". -- or as in this case, they cleared the path through the crowd so the military could pass through. But you're confirming my point about prosecutions nonetheless. This Blackwater indiscretion appeared on video too, so something had to be done about it. How many countries hire civilians to care for their troops in war zones? Do you really want a list? Britain, United Nations, Biafra, Sierra Leone, Libya, Australia, etc. You could check and see who DynCorp, Triple Canopy, or Executive Outcomes have worked supporting. Not sure why you are laughing. I thought it was funny. I think it's even funnier now. Did you think I'd laugh for no reason at all?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 14, 2015 2:10:16 GMT -5
Actually those men were not in the American military. They were American civilians who were working for the private Blackwater (American) company which had contracted with the US government to provide security for the US military "entourage". -- or as in this case, they cleared the path through the crowd so the military could pass through. But you're confirming my point about prosecutions nonetheless. This Blackwater indiscretion appeared on video too, so something had to be done about it. How many countries hire civilians to care for their troops in war zones? Allies of the USA should seriously consider hiring civilians to protect them from the friendly fire coming in from the USA.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2015 8:14:31 GMT -5
I know you didn't, and I didn't say you did. All I said was that I disagreed with your moral standard. :) Since it was not stated, you have no idea of my moral standard. No one is saying or implying he is/was lying. He could well have killed the enemy while they were engaged in combat. Your statement - -- in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing.is incorrect. Clint Lorance and the men in his command had to answer for their actions. Lieutenant Michael Behenna had to answer for his actions. Whether you agree with the actions taken or not your statement is in error.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2015 9:28:21 GMT -5
I thought it was funny. I think it's even funnier now. Did you think I'd laugh for no reason at all? :D I try not to prejudge.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 14, 2015 15:21:43 GMT -5
I thought it was funny. I think it's even funnier now. Did you think I'd laugh for no reason at all? I try not to prejudge.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 16, 2015 16:17:17 GMT -5
|
|