Are you OK, Lupo? Your responses today are kinda off the wall. Heal.
Whose's trying to swift boat Murtha? And do you really believe everything the media feeds you. I know the answer to that one and you would be the first to jump on it in another venue.

You probably don't like much of T.R either then do you Wailuku ?

The difference is T.R. was not dismissive of the death that war brings.

I'm not dismissive of death either, but I do have a strong preference for the dieing to be done by the other side if there must be any dieing.....very strong preference.

Time for politicly correct thinking is a luxury not always afforded...

As a great republican president once said

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
Kansas City Star (May 7, 1918)

that is what im talking about regarding trying to discredit the messenger. the media and murtha only know what the military invistigation is telling them......there is no spin here.
oregonian-
you keep making up your own facts and trying to argue them instead of what happened-

there was no IED, there was no complicit civilians that deserved to have their wives and kids killed, there was no child with a grenade walking toward a tank, .....you guys are just making crap up so that you dont have to think about the real situation. it has nothing to do with murtha or the media or anything but soldiers that went nuts and killed a bunch of women and children........

exactly what im talking about!!!!! what sides are there oregonian????? if we are in a war for the hearts and minds of the iraqi people......these people were on our side!!!!!! how in the world does an army defeat an insurgency if actions like this turn iraqi's, that once supported the USA, into insurgents....

this whole war is hell arguement is just crap in this so called war.... it was a pre-emptive war that was decided upon under flase information, we are being told that we are there to liberate, what part of murder is liberation???

how do you not understand that this will put every american soldier at greater risk???????????

if we are just there to steal oil and the iraqi people are the "other side"....then we need to get our soldiers out immediately

"If/when noncombatants are used by the insurgents, they are then our enemy even if it doesn't look or sound nice,"

Pretty dismissive if you ask me! Perhaps I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

The way I interpret it is that if American soldiers are captured and then used by the insurgency as human shields etc... then by your logic they should be considered enemies and no one here should ***** and moan when they die.

Or perhaps it only counts if they are noncombatant Iraqi's?!?!?!

Okay, I'll restate my point again...



I'll use a fake situation for illustration purposes, following so far, not a real scenario unless by coincidence, you don't need to ask where and when.

Let's pretend that the bad guys are set up in a school or hospital and are lobbing shells at U.S. positions (killing our boys), the bad guys are only there to hide behind the civilians (human shield)..........it is my opinion that the bad guys have intensionly put those people at risk and the bad guys are to blame for every scratch or harm which befalls them. Further, I think in that situation we should imediatly kill all the bad guys by the fastest and most efficient means, even though a high percentage of the human shield will also be killed......That is the only way to win a war when the situation gets that bad. IF we operated like that consistantly the people would not so easily allow themselves to be used as a shield because they would associate it with almost certain death, and it only comes because of the bad guys operations. IF we operated in WWII the way many folks want us to operate now our forces would have been obliterated and the world would be much worse for it......

IF the bad guys can be contained and can not do harm from their position, then some strung out "situation" could be played out for the optimum safety of the hostages, if the bad guys are killing us from their position then call in support and plug your ears.

I regret every death in conflict, I wish there would never be another shot fired in anger, but I am living in reality not fantasy, and I'm not getting philosophical about why our boys are in harms way, just saying we owe it to our boys to keep them alive if possible while they are there doing the dirty work.

Spin it around, misinterpret every word, play dumb, and I'll type it up a couple more times, or bring an opposing opinion with some shread of reason to support it, and please don't regurgitate the old one about harming those we are supposed to be helping, I already gave the bad guys the credit for getting them killed, hurt, burned, crippled, dismembered, etc........

"Spin it around, misinterpret every word, play dumb"

Nobody is spinning anything around nor are they playing dumb. Your insinuation on the other hand...

Again, clearly this time. The same scenario this time the "human shields are Americans". Do you believe the same course of action should be taken? If your answer is not yes then I question your stated claim that you value human life!

I'm not talking about a particular instance, just the ROE...

Your presumptions of my experiance are fun to read...

Tell me again about your Presidential experiance before you snipe at our Commander in Chief...

I am sorry that you couldn't comprehend the point illustrated, nor even the fact that it was an illustration to try and make things understandable to the point even the locals here could savvy...maybe I could get my kids to draw a picture with crayons and scan it...

If the enemy has them dead on their feet what do you propose, get another few dozen killed to go along with the hostages, or maybe have Kerry appologize for our position and see if they offer tea ?

I guess when you have no intelligent reply you resort to character assination...at least you are in good company.


You attempt to circumvent any point I make by questioning my military experiance of which you have zero knowledge (not your business), and when I turn your move on you to show you how ridiculous it is, you act like you are above speaking to such a person who would do that !

Ever seen a mirror ?

I'm not advocating breaking the ROE, but maybe we should consider changing them to be mo-betta...

Oregonian,

I'm with Wailuku on this. If you maintain the same position in your pretend example if the human shields are Americans instead of Iraqis, I'll at least give you credit for consistency, but not for valuing human life.

No spin, just what would you do. Your the commander on site, the insurgents are hiding behind American human shields and raining mortars on your men. There are 50 American human shields. You and your men numbered 20 and are down to 16. What cha' gonna' do?

Have a good time with this one.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Eliminate the threat immediatly by the fastest and most reliable means, without a seconds hesitation.

Why add another sole to the 50 hostages already lost ?


Not a fun situation to think about...I'm sure you meant to wink when you said that...

We are all still remembering that this example is in a war, right ?

Cain't argue with book learnin' eh ?

Could be that book learnin' has evolved to be less than it once was...

These boys with the learning are also doing things which you seem to dislike, are there certain times of the day or month when you follow them and other times when you disagree ?