Thread: On Marines Incident: "Shut your mouth, war is hell"

I would classify this the same as some of the dumb things cops do on camera.

Yeah maybe it shouldn't have been done,but you sure should have been smart enough to not do it while being on camera.

Originally Posted by MikeE

Without commenting on the incident. I would gladly urinate on Allen West.

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." Ayn Rand

using their left hand....ha ha ha

Put a balogne sandwich in theri pockets, cut their genitals off and insert in their mouths then leave em for their buddies to find so they know what is going to happen to them

Originally Posted by slimer13

Please explain, he seems alright to me.

As a Congressman, West had constituents arrested at his public forum. To me, that crosses a big red line from being an elected public servant to being a thug. I have been at very rowdy meetings with elected officials, in fact my friends and I were the ones being loud and insistent. The Reps in question , with whom i really disagreed, and whose politics were just like Allen West's, were completely professional.They allowed us our say while defending their positions and making sure everyone got to talk if they so wished. They showed that they had the chops for the job. West does not.
Bottom line - these guys work for us.

Originally Posted by dmancornell

Implying self-defense is the same thing as initiating a lethal attack.

Would you kill people who weren't attacking you? If so, you belong in a psych ward.

Where the hell did that come from? Did I say I would kill someone who wasn't attacking me? Or are you just trying to start another anti-government/military bullbubblegum fight that doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the OP? You might be a smart guy, but your tactics are getting old.......

Originally Posted by iusmc2002

Where the hell did that come from? Did I say I would kill someone who wasn't attacking me? Or are you just trying to start another anti-government/military bullbubblegum fight that doesn't really have anything to do with the subject of the OP? You might be a smart guy, but your tactics are getting old.......

You claim that the very act of killing attackers is "stooping to their level" (i.e. of the attackers), my response is that self-defense is morally acceptable whereas initiating lethal force is not. Hence the question, if you see no difference between self-defense and initiating lethal force, then you must be OK with killing people who are not attacking you. What say you?

In any case, your entire post revolves around the fact that Taliban misdeeds forgive US misdeeds, implying two wrongs make a right. I hope you can see that is not true.

Originally Posted by dmancornell

implying two wrongs make a right. I hope you can see that is not true.

Agree 100% two wrongs make two wrongs, two wrongs _never_ make a right.

So in a battlefield situation you would order your troops to hold fire until the opposing force shoots or shells your men first?

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

So in a battlefield situation you would order your troops to hold fire until the opposing force shoots or shells your men first?

Who said *ANYTHING* about that? Acting in a manner consistent with guidelines of conduct during active warfare and the Geneva Conventions has nothing to do with this. This is about the actions taken *AFTER* the battle was over.

Originally Posted by dmancornell

Hence the question, if you see no difference between self-defense and initiating lethal force, then you must be OK with killing people who are not attacking you.

Right there.

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

Right there.

If you want to talk about the Geneva convention and the controversy regarding lawful vs unlawful combatants, send me a PM. Let's stick to the OP topic.

Originally Posted by CharonPDX

Shooting at someone who is trying to kill you is obviously not the same thing. I gather you do not believe in the Golden Rule?

Obviously there will always be people who hate the freedoms the US signifies, and there will always be those who wish us ill will. But if we take actions beyond those necessary for protection that directly taunt our enemies, we give them fuel to convert those who would have otherwise just sat on the sidelines.

You have stated in previous postings that the "Golden Rule" should be applied.
Read this, as I asked before, can you read? Reading is not just having the words pass before your eyes, it is understanding what has been written:
How would you feel, if a million Soviet troops stormed your Reich Capital?
You are a hypocrite, you don't believe in the "Golden Rule" you only want others to behave the way you want. Here is why I say this, the Muslims do all sorts of bad things, and yet, you don't require them to adhere to the "Golden Rule" I don't think beheading Daniel Pearl exhibits your requested behavior, I am sitting on the sidelines and when they cut off his head live on TV I became one of your offended converts who now want to participate. Do you even understand the "Golden Rule"?
If the Muslims want to play nice I will, I haven't seen them apply the "Golden Rule". I could care less if you expect me to behave the way you want, why don't you try to get the Muslims to use the "Golden Rule" see how far you get.
It is people like you that cause the problems we have today, you don't, won't, and can't understand history, you ignore the reality of today, and you expect others to follow your lead, even though you are driving your car by looking at your hood ornament.
3000 people died at ground zero, go apply your "Golden Rule" to that. Go to the site, come back and tell us how to apply your rule. If you think I will forget or forgive what has been done you have mistaken my resolve. I don't want revenge, I don't want to punish, I want them dead. If they are dead they can never do to another what they have done to so many, that my ignorant friend is what the "Golden Rule" means.

Jim

S'pose this puts a different spin on the "golden" rule, eh? Personally, I wouldn't care if they were also attacked by a half a dozen coiled western cornback rattlers.

But given all the predictable backlash, who's the rocket surgeon who had to post it on the internet?

no no thank you for saying that as an american i can only speak freely as long as you think it is ok, or as ong as it does not show the USA in a bad light

Originally Posted by kenno

Thank you Saxon for proving all my points correct

Originally Posted by trainsktg

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

This.

Keith

To continue Congressmen Wests' analogy ... nobody can criticize politicians unless they have been one. As for me, if I had the choice between being shot at the Taliban and then peeing on their corpses or getting to pee on any member of Congress ... well let's just say the choice is pretty easy to make.

Originally Posted by OregonBuzz

Some folks, on other web sites/blogs have brought up the Geneva Convention. Why, I don't know. Our forces are burdened by such onerous Rules Of Engagement (ROE) that I'm surprised they still willingly go into combat situations. I'm an Alan West fan. He's "been there, done that", and if I had to go into combat I would follow him to the gates of hell because he believes in his men, and the principle that we win they lose. All of this flap is a symptom of what ails us folks, and it's going to be like multiple root canals to rid ourselves of this pestilence. HOORAH, MARINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a big history guy are you? The Russians did what West suggests and you seem to support. What happened to them?

Originally Posted by Kevatc

To continue Congressmen Wests' analogy ... nobody can criticize politicians unless they have been one. As for me, if I had the choice between being shot at the Taliban and then peeing on their corpses or getting to pee on any member of Congress ... well let's just say the choice is pretty easy to make.

You'd rather shoot and then piss on a US Congressmen than the Taliban? To much time in school listening to those nutty professors or what?

Originally Posted by dmancornell

You claim that the very act of killing attackers is "stooping to their level" (i.e. of the attackers), my response is that self-defense is morally acceptable whereas initiating lethal force is not. Hence the question, if you see no difference between self-defense and initiating lethal force, then you must be OK with killing people who are not attacking you. What say you?

In any case, your entire post revolves around the fact that Taliban misdeeds forgive US misdeeds, implying two wrongs make a right. I hope you can see that is not true.

I'll waste no more time on you, but will say this:
If I know for a FACT that some SOB is intent on killing me (i.e. Taliban, jihadists, muhj, ragheads or the next-door neighber) you're goddamn right I have no problem killing him/them. If I'm in prison, and some big bugger calls me a female dog, I know he has some plans for me that aren't going to be to my liking. I WILL take the initiative and bubblegum him up when he's least expecting it. Like when he's bench pressing and not expecting to get his face smashed in by a 10 lbs weight, propelled by someone with the desire to NOT BE bubblegumED WITH. The best defense is a good offense. Had I been given the chance, I would have pissed on every insurgent we killed. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it sure as hell makes you feel better, ROE's and "morals" be damned

Originally Posted by MikeE

As a Congressman, West had constituents arrested at his public forum. To me, that crosses a big red line from being an elected public servant to being a thug. I have been at very rowdy meetings with elected officials, in fact my friends and I were the ones being loud and insistent. The Reps in question , with whom i really disagreed, and whose politics were just like Allen West's, were completely professional.They allowed us our say while defending their positions and making sure everyone got to talk if they so wished. They showed that they had the chops for the job. West does not.
Bottom line - these guys work for us.

Hmmm, that seems to be just as prevalent on the left, if not more so.

Joe Lieberman's Constituents Arrested in Senate Office Sit-In for Single-Payer

Joe Lieberman's Constituents Arrested in Senate Office Sit-In for Single-Payer.

New Democrat Town Hall Strategy: Have Constituents Arrested

Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire's District 1 appears to be implementing the new Democrat Town Hall strategy: have constituents arrested

Statist Senator Has Constituents Arrested « The Underground Conservative

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) had a group of his constituents arrested for unlawful entry for visiting his office on Capitol Hill to request a meeting with the senator over the planned government takeover of the health care system.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski Has Her Own Constituents Arrested | Voices for Creative Nonviolence

At 6:05pm on February 27, Sen. Barbara Mikulski had Capitol Police arrest four of her own constituents when they refused to leave her office.

Retirees arrested at Sen. Feinstein's LA office - Ages 55 - 87 re: Healthcare - Democratic Underground

A group of retirees who refused to leave Sen. Dianne Feinstein's West Los Angeles office until she talked to them about health care reform has been arrested.

Freedom Of Assembly Goes Down In Flames In DC | Freedom's Wings

Several protesters were rewarded by being arrested at the request of their representatives. So much for our freedom to assemble, particularly when this assembly took place in the People’s House.

I could go on, but I don't care to be redundant.
You lefties have SUCH short memories. The health care town hall debacles highlighted your hypocrisy, as more often than you will admit, it was the left that had constituents arrested.
And all the while the MSM referred to the TEA partiers as being unreasonable and unruly.


When and if you EVER walk in Allen West's boots, you can *think* about pissing on him.
But you do so at your own risk. Would he provide the beat down? Or just have you arrested,...?
I don't know, but IMO he'd be right either way.

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5

Hmmm, that seems to be just as prevalent on the left, if not more so.

Joe Lieberman's Constituents Arrested in Senate Office Sit-In for Single-Payer

New Democrat Town Hall Strategy: Have Constituents Arrested

Statist Senator Has Constituents Arrested « The Underground Conservative

Sen. Barbara Mikulski Has Her Own Constituents Arrested | Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Retirees arrested at Sen. Feinstein's LA office - Ages 55 - 87 re: Healthcare - Democratic Underground

Freedom Of Assembly Goes Down In Flames In DC | Freedom's Wings


I could go on, but I don't care to be redundant.
You lefties have SUCH short memories. The health care town hall debacles highlighted your hypocrisy, as more often than you will admit, it was the left that had constituents arrested.
And all the while the MSM referred to the TEA partiers as being unreasonable and unruly.


When and if you EVER walk in Allen West's boots, you can *think* about pissing on him.
But you do so at your own risk. Would he provide the beat down? Or just have you arrested,...?
I don't know, but IMO he'd be right either way.

You should re read my post if you think i'm defending democrats.
The hell with West. The last time I checked, we lived in a Republic, not under a military elite.
Lastly, the issue here is not the soldiers or their acts, or even the pathetic grandstanding of West. The issue is the political leadership that has maintained the war in Afghanistan long after it had lost any meaningful goal for the USA. I'm talking about both Pres. Obama, and the Bush regime before it. And the economic interests that are fattening on this mess.