The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Kutnupe14]

We tried that. The bleeding hearts called it "torture".

lol, I gotta rep you for that.

 

[nonobaddog]

You may know more about fires, but it appears that I know more about military history. The British of the 18th century employee a smooth bore rifle called the “Brown Bess.” The rifle had no sights and was notoriously inaccurate past 100 yards. Given that fact, the British trained, and employed “linear tactics” (lined up by rows) to improve the effectiveness of their muskets. While the regulars in the Continental Army also used similar arms and tactics, irregulars employed guerrilla tactics, learned from the Indian Wars, and were outfitted with superior rifle arms, most famously, the Kentucky Long Rifle.
It wasn’t a question of the officers not being very smart, it was more that they didn’t have the ability to quickly adapt to the warfare being used against them.

And that is called - not very smart.
Anyhow, the not very smart part is not the point. They had rules they followed that put them standing in lines. They could have easily laid down and been smaller targets. They could have used any type of cover or at least concealment and still used volley fire which for some odd reason you think other people don't know about. Their rules put them at a distinct disadvantage. Without their rules they could have used the same guerrilla tactics they were fighting against to utilize cover to get within the effective range of their weapons.

ETA - I did a little exercise firing muskets and as a beginner I have to admit the only way I could see me reloading the thing would be standing up. But I would get behind a tree to do it, if there was one, or at least get behind a fat guy until my line was up to fire. The rest of the time I would be presenting the smallest target I could. It was only the obsolete rules that made those soldiers stand up like range targets. Even squirrels are smart enough to run up the back side of a tree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And that is called - not very smart.
Anyhow, the not very smart part is not the point. They had rules they followed that put them standing in lines. They could have easily laid down and been smaller targets. They could have used any type of cover or at least concealment and still used volley fire which for some odd reason you think other people don't know about. Their rules put them at a distinct disadvantage. Without their rules they could have used the same guerrilla tactics they were fighting against to utilize cover to get within the effective range of their weapons.

I hardly consider tactics, “rules,” within the concept we’re speaking. And as I mentioned earlier they didn’t have the ability to adapt quickly to employ better tactics. You can’t force a square peg on a round hole.

 

[nonobaddog]

I hardly consider tactics, “rules,” within the concept we’re speaking. And as I mentioned earlier they didn’t have the ability to adapt quickly to employ better tactics. You can’t force a square peg on a round hole.

I've seen kids try that - so far you are right.

 

[jbombelli]

So if we start killing their friends and families how exactly are we different from them?

I'm not worried about being better than them. I'm worried about utterly defeating them. They don't fear us because we've given them no reason to fear us. And they never will until we are meaner and more brutal than they are.

 

[KLB]

I'm not worried about being better than them. I'm worried about utterly defeating them. They don't fear us because we've given them no reason to fear us. And they never will until we are meaner and more brutal than they are.

That worked really well for the Soviets.

 

[KLB]

What?? You never heard of the carpet bombing that went on? Never heard of hiroshima or nagasaki? Look it up sometime.

Now point out the times we killed civilians in areas we controlled. Then point out the times we killed POWs. Either of those things would have been considered a crime and the soldier(s) responsible would have been punished.

The closest thing I can think of in our history to what you guys are saying was the fight with the Indian tribes. We did at times slaughter them, women, children, old, sick, wounded. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Destroying fighters while they are fighting is one thing. Killing those that have surrendered, are wounded, or are in friendly controlled territory is not. I don't want a bunch of homicidal maniacs in our army.

 

[jamil]

Maybe a reminder is in order here. We’re talking a soldier disobeying rules to kill people on the other side when the rules say not to. And you could say, kill or be killed, like in the Vietnam example. And I understand that. This wasn’t that situation. (Not that he’s necessarily guilty—he was acquitted. But we’re talking about it as if he is, and whether or not it would have been okay.)

So now we’re talking about whether it SHOULD be okay for soldiers to indiscriminately kill civilians or prisoners because they deserve to die, or simply because they would do it to us. I’m saying that decision is above your pay-grade. Do what you’re told. And if the circumstances are dire, that in the moment it’s either you or him, do what you have to do.

Saying that you should obey the rules isn’t bleeding heart bull****. This is how ordered, rule-of-law societies work. In battle, when engaging the enemy, follow the rules of engagement. In a situation like the one we’re discussing, just do what you’re told. If you disagree with the rules, earn enough stars on your lapel to have a say in what the rules are. Get elected as president and have a say in that to the extent that the constitution allows. Get elected to congress and draft a bill; try to get it passed. Jesus Christ, a soldier isn’t an autonomous, sovereign, individual unit which gets to indiscriminately decide who lives and dies.

 

[jbombelli]

That worked really well for the Soviets.

They only went halfway. They fought in Afghanistan kind of like we fought in Vietnam.

We could end this in a week if we had the will to do it. But we don't. So my generation has to deal with this, my kids' generation will be dealing with this, our grandkids will be dealing with this, on down the line in perpetuity.

It really is a binary choice. Either you find this completely unacceptable and you finish it once and for all, or you don't, and you continue dealing with it forever. They aren't ever going to change their minds. They train their children to hate us. And their grandchildren. On down the line in perpetuity.

 

[Jludo]

They only went halfway. They fought in Afghanistan kind of like we fought in Vietnam.

We could end this in a week if we had the will to do it. But we don't. So my generation has to deal with this, my kids' generation will be dealing with this, our grandkids will be dealing with this, on down the line in perpetuity.

It really is a binary choice. Either you find this completely unacceptable and you finish it once and for all, or you don't, and you continue dealing with it forever. They aren't ever going to change their minds. They train their children to hate us. And their grandchildren. On down the line in perpetuity.

why don't you put in plain terms exactly what you're advocating here.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

why don't you put in plain terms exactly what you're advocating here.

[video=youtube;Oo9buo9Mtos]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos[/video]

 

[BugI02]

Ever heard of the Malmedy Massacre? From your words it would seem that you wouldn't have issue with it.
But to answer your question, as to why this is a "debate," you need look no further than Nuremberg. We (the United States) and the Allies, following the war, employed Victor's Justice on the defeated. We made it a spectacle, that is forever lasting, that there is a right and a wrong way to wage war. And as such, it has been absorbed into our culture that we do thing the "right way." If we are unable to keep the standards that we have employed, to the point of execution of others, they we would rightfully be called hypocrites.

Bull****, and you know it. How many people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not enemy combatants? Firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? Want it more up close and personal? Small groups of SOF moving behind the 'lines', you think they take prisoners?

It is war

“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”

 

[nonobaddog]

Maybe a reminder is in order here. We’re talking a soldier disobeying rules to kill people on the other side when the rules say not to. And you could say, kill or be killed, like in the Vietnam example. And I understand that. This wasn’t that situation. (Not that he’s necessarily guilty—he was acquitted. But we’re talking about it as if he is, and whether or not it would have been okay.)

So now we’re talking about whether it SHOULD be okay for soldiers to indiscriminately kill civilians or prisoners because they deserve to die, or simply because they would do it to us. I’m saying that decision is above your pay-grade. Do what you’re told. And if the circumstances are dire, that in the moment it’s either you or him, do what you have to do.

Saying that you should obey the rules isn’t bleeding heart bull****. This is how ordered, rule-of-law societies work. In battle, when engaging the enemy, follow the rules of engagement. In a situation like the one we’re discussing, just do what you’re told. If you disagree with the rules, earn enough stars on your lapel to have a say in what the rules are. Get elected as president and have a say in that to the extent that the constitution allows. Get elected to congress and draft a bill; try to get it passed. Jesus Christ, a soldier isn’t an autonomous, sovereign, individual unit which gets to indiscriminately decide who lives and dies.

Now lets start over on the situation in vietnam. Lets say charges were brought against them for shooting kids. I could describe that whole scene completely differently and leave out certain parts and expand on other parts and make it sound like a terrible crime was committed. Ones opinion could easily be swayed by which version was heard first.

In vietnam the viet cong knew that American soldiers liked to kick cans they find laying around. So the viet cong would booby trap cans and leave them along roads and trails. American soldiers had to learn not to kick any cans and that became part of the knowledge that was passed on to those new in country.
Another thing that was passed along was not to trust kids that come running up to you. Too many times they would be loaded and blow up. One guy told me about an incident. I didn't know this guy well so I don't know how reliable it is in this particular case but similar crap happened many other times so I tend to believe him. One time when a kid was running toward him, he didn't like the looks of the situation so he shot the kid. It turned out there were no explosives on the kid at all. The only thing they found was a flower in her hand, possibly to give to him. Understandably this shook him up bad. Now what if charges were brought against him. I, or anybody else, could easily write a description of the incident that would make him sound like a monster, or like a reasonable response to a threat.
I said all this to point out the situation we have here with the SEAL. We don't have video. We don't have all the facts. We do have descriptions that can be written many ways, some could defend his actions, whatever they were, and some could condemn. We do have very conflicting stories that are incompatible - so some of them are definitely false and outright lies. We don't know which stories are true and which are lies. Some opinions will be swayed by which stories are heard first.

In my opinion, one thing seems clear, SEAL Team 7 needs to be scrubbed clean. They are not operation ready. The team has to be a team with 100% trust in every member, They don't have that. I don't know if it is the leadership or other members but they have a toxic situation.

 

[BugI02]

I wonder if either Kut’s or Trumpers’ position would change if Trump weren’t involved at all. I have no way of knowing but that would be interesting to know.

The way I understand it, his own service's court system could only convict him of posing with a body - aquitted on all the other alleged offenses. Then people who did not testify to the effect or could not prove it, who have huge holes in their story including lack of a consistent timeline, who assert he killed hundreds of 'innocent' people but can't seem to come up with any hard evidence - their interviews with the press of all things are dredged up to try to move public opinion on the matter. 'Testimony' not given under oath.

Then Trump pardons him of the 'crime' of posing with a dead enemy

I think his branch was determined to squeeze some kind of result out of their expenditure of resources. Trump really only comes to mind as allegory; another for whom the system was stacked against him in every possible way and that system still couldn't touch him, although they won't stop trying. I can certainly see why Trump would find the case compelling

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bull****, and you know it. How many people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not enemy combatants? Firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? Want it more up close and personal? Small groups of SOF moving behind the 'lines', you think they take prisoners?

It is war

You're comparing total war, where involved nations tool their entirety of their civilian societies towards war, with a regional conflict with dubious goals? Now that's . The idea that you think killing wounded POWs is somehow comparable is ridiculous. I can't speak on SOF moving behind enemy lines, but objectives tend to outweigh the need to take prisoners. That I can live with, but in the instance we're discussing that was not the case. Gallagher allegedly killed the captured enemy combatant, for no reason other than his sadistic nature.

 

[nonobaddog]

You're comparing total war, where involved nations tool their entirety of their civilian societies towards war, with a regional conflict with dubious goals? Now that's . The idea that you think killing wounded POWs is somehow comparable is ridiculous. I can't speak on SOF moving behind enemy lines, but objectives tend to outweigh the need to take prisoners. That I can live with, but in the instance we're discussing that was not the case. Gallagher allegedly killed the captured enemy combatant, for no reason other than his sadistic nature.

You say "allegedly" but then you give away your real belief, which is based on an absence of any verifiable facts.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You say "allegedly" but then you give away your real belief, which is based on an absence of any verifiable facts.

That is an untruth based on wishful thinking, and an affinity for war criminals:
Verifiable facts -
-SEALS say Gallagher killed the wounded prisoner with a knife
-Gallagher sends picture of dead prison to friend saying he "got him with my hunting knife."
-One SEAL unexpectedly recants after given immunity saying he suffocated the prisoner.

 

[BugI02]

You're comparing total war, where involved nations tool their entirety of their civilian societies towards war, with a regional conflict with dubious goals? Now that's . The idea that you think killing wounded POWs is somehow comparable is ridiculous. I can't speak on SOF moving behind enemy lines, but objectives tend to outweigh the need to take prisoners. That I can live with, but in the instance we're discussing that was not the case. Gallagher allegedly killed the captured enemy combatant, for no reason other than his sadistic nature.

But enlighten me here. Were these allegations dealt with at trial? If so, was he not acquitted by the military justice system? If the allegations were not brought up at trial, why not? Was it because the prosecutors knew/didn't think they could satisfactorily prove those allegations?

The whole thing just starts to look like a hatchet job. So why should I even believe that Gallagher killed the POW if those who judged him did not or if his accusers didn't think the charge important enough to make part of the indictment from the beginning

 

[nonobaddog]

That is an untruth based on wishful thinking, and an affinity for war criminals:
Verifiable facts -
-SEALS say Gallagher killed the wounded prisoner with a knife
-Gallagher sends picture of dead prison to friend saying he "got him with my hunting knife."
-One SEAL unexpectedly recants after given immunity saying he suffocated the prisoner.

There are conflicting stories. You are choosing which to believe.

Are you seriously accusing me in writing of having an affinity for war criminals?

 

[Kutnupe14]

But enlighten me here. Were these allegations dealt with at trial? If so, was he not acquitted by the military justice system? If the allegations were not brought up at trial, why not? Was it because the prosecutors knew/didn't think they could satisfactorily prove those allegations?

The whole thing just starts to look like a hatchet job. So why should I even believe that Gallagher killed the POW if those who judged him did not or if his accusers didn't think the charge important enough to make part of the indictment from the beginning

He was acquitted. After the one SEAL, given immunity recanted, prosecutors knew they could make their case. I'm not sure how you figure it was a hatchet job, unless you're unfamiliar with how people given immunity have a fairly long history of rolling back their stories.
Gallagher implied he killed the prisoner, with a knife, and another SEAL indicated that he saw Gallagher kill the prisoner, with a knife. Those, as far as what was said by both, is factual. Explain to me how you think this was a setup?