View Full Version : Soldier tried in absentia
US soldier charged over Italian shot in Iraq
By Reuters, Wed Feb 7 2007 2:12 PM GMT
A Rome judge ordered on Wednesday a U.S. soldier to stand trial on homicide charges for shooting dead an Italian intelligence agent in Iraq in 2005 as he was escorting a newly freed hostage to safety, prosecutors said.
Mario Lozano of the U.S. Army's 69th Infantry Regiment was charged with voluntary homicide for shooting Nicola Calipari at a checkpoint near Baghdad airport.
He will be almost certainly tried in absentia as the U.S. military has not revealed his location to Italy.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/29a0a9b2-b6c3-11db-8bc2-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=6700d4e4-6714-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html
Love those Italians!
trobinett
02-07-2007, 01:11 PM
This is just ridiculous!
Gaffer
02-07-2007, 05:05 PM
Another example of why we need to stay out of treaties with EU.
Hagbard Celine
02-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Do you guys not think that soldiers should be held accountable when they break the law? If so, why? Do you think that soldiers are superior to normal people or that their service in the military precludes them from decent behavior and following the laws of man?
Do you guys not think that soldiers should be held accountable when they break the law? If so, why? Do you think that soldiers are superior to normal people or that their service in the military precludes them from decent behavior and following the laws of man?
Now I remember why I had you on ignore on that "other" board.
Gaffer
02-07-2007, 07:14 PM
Do you guys not think that soldiers should be held accountable when they break the law? If so, why? Do you think that soldiers are superior to normal people or that their service in the military precludes them from decent behavior and following the laws of man?
The soldiers that fired on that car in this case had not been informed of the hostage rescue and thought it was a suicide bomber coming at them. They responded appropreately. If the soldier had done something wrong he would have been investigated and tried by our own military as has been done repeatedly before. This is nothing but a leftist move to attack our military again. They can try him in abstentia all they want. He's going to be back in this country living safe and comfortable.
Our military is held to a lot more stringent accountability than any country in the world. We take care of our own and don't need other countries doing it for us.
pegwinn
02-08-2007, 12:59 AM
Do you guys not think that soldiers should be held accountable when they break the law? Of course they should. Atrocities and violations of the laws of war besmirch all professional military men. However, this incident has been investigated to death. He was within the rules of engagement, which are in my opinion to hard.
If so, why? Explained above.
Do you think that soldiers are superior to normal people Yes. Read my blog post on the rebuttal to daily kos (click the link in my sig and then click the story link.)
or that their service in the military precludes them from decent behavior and following the laws of man? Of course not. IN fact, our military is held to a higher standard than our elected officials.
Did you know that a passage thru friendly lines is more dangerous than a frontal assault?
Gunny
02-08-2007, 09:59 PM
Do you guys not think that soldiers should be held accountable when they break the law? If so, why? Do you think that soldiers are superior to normal people or that their service in the military precludes them from decent behavior and following the laws of man?
One, there are no "Laws of Man."
Two, if the soldier had actually committed a crime, he'd have been held accountable by appropriate US authorities.
The Italians have been looking for some bullshit excuse ever since that libby journalist of theirs ran a roadblock and her vehicle was fired on.
Italy has no jurisdiction over the United States nor its personnel. Simple as that.
trobinett
02-09-2007, 12:55 PM
While stationed in Belgium at SHAPE, a friend of mine was involved in a terrible death while on vacation in France.
He and his new American bride, also an American solider, were driving back to Belgium in a light rain in the early morning hours, on a two lane black top highway. While rounding a curve, they ran upon a Frenchman on a bicycle, and struck him. They were NOT speeding, even for the weather conditions, nor were they impaired in any way. A Frenchman would of been let go on the spot, yet because these were Americans, and service personal to boot, they were both held for two days, the female was released, and the male was going to be held until trial.
After some negoiations with French authorities he was released, and ordered to present himself to French control in two weeks.
SHAPE officials put him on the first plane to the United States, and let the French try him in absentia. He was found guilty of reckless driving.
Its exactly what we all thought would happen, and were pleased that our Base Commander had authorized his return to the states.
Hagbard Celine
02-09-2007, 12:59 PM
So I guess the answers are "no" and "yes" respectively.
theHawk
02-09-2007, 02:13 PM
So I guess the answers are "no" and "yes" respectively.
Thats obviously the only answers you want to hear, even though they've all been saying the exact opposite. :lalala:
Hagbard Celine
02-09-2007, 02:17 PM
Thats obviously the only answers you want to hear, even though they've all been saying the exact opposite. :lalala:
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
theHawk
02-09-2007, 02:26 PM
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
Nice of you to presume them guilty. They broke no laws, they fired on a vehicle that was speeding to their checkpoint. You have no way of proving that they knew who was in the car and shot at them intentionally anyway in order to kill them. If they wanted to kill the people in the car, they would of run up and finished the job --instead there were survivors and they called in the medics once they realized who they were. That is not murder, it was all a misunderstanding.
Hobbit
02-09-2007, 02:30 PM
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
You have a pretty loose definition of murder. In a place where the enemy uses cars loaded with explosives to try to kill you, you can't second guess yourself. An undocumented, unmarked vehicle was speeding right toward them. They assumed it was a suicide bomb, because they couldn't afford not to. That being the case, they shot at it. This would be the equivalent of shooting someone rushing at you with a knife only to find out later that the knife was fake and it was part of some publicity stunt. That's not murder.
Hagbard Celine
02-09-2007, 02:34 PM
You have a pretty loose definition of murder. In a place where the enemy uses cars loaded with explosives to try to kill you, you can't second guess yourself. An undocumented, unmarked vehicle was speeding right toward them. They assumed it was a suicide bomb, because they couldn't afford not to. That being the case, they shot at it. This would be the equivalent of shooting someone rushing at you with a knife only to find out later that the knife was fake and it was part of some publicity stunt. That's not murder.
You're right, I should've said "man slaughter."
theHawk
02-09-2007, 02:35 PM
You have a pretty loose definition of murder. In a place where the enemy uses cars loaded with explosives to try to kill you, you can't second guess yourself. An undocumented, unmarked vehicle was speeding right toward them. They assumed it was a suicide bomb, because they couldn't afford not to. That being the case, they shot at it. This would be the equivalent of shooting someone rushing at you with a knife only to find out later that the knife was fake and it was part of some publicity stunt. That's not murder.
People with political agendas like Hagbard could care less about the facts. Somehow I doubt he's very upset about Ted Kennedy getting a woman killed in a river and never bothered to call the police, but sures as shit remembered to call his lawyer.
Hobbit
02-09-2007, 03:03 PM
You're right, I should've said "man slaughter."
Also not true. To prove manslaughter, you must prove that the person acted in a way that needlessly put the person's life in danger. That would be whatever jackass never told them the truck was coming. The soldier followed standard operating procedures. If they didn't shoot at unauthorized vehicles attempting to blow through the checkpoint at high speed, then what's the point of the checkpoint? Had the Italians told the Americans the truck was coming, or if the truck had stopped, none of this would have happened.
This ain't no civilian area we are talking about. The checkpoints aren't to look for some convenience store robber hiding in some jackass's trunk. We're talking about suicide bombers who...DRIVE TRUCKS AT FULL SPEED STRAIGHT AT CHECKPOINTS SO THEY CAN BLOW THEM UP!
Hagbard Celine
02-09-2007, 03:48 PM
Also not true. To prove manslaughter, you must prove that the person acted in a way that needlessly put the person's life in danger. That would be whatever jackass never told them the truck was coming. The soldier followed standard operating procedures. If they didn't shoot at unauthorized vehicles attempting to blow through the checkpoint at high speed, then what's the point of the checkpoint? Had the Italians told the Americans the truck was coming, or if the truck had stopped, none of this would have happened.
This ain't no civilian area we are talking about. The checkpoints aren't to look for some convenience store robber hiding in some jackass's trunk. We're talking about suicide bombers who...DRIVE TRUCKS AT FULL SPEED STRAIGHT AT CHECKPOINTS SO THEY CAN BLOW THEM UP!
I guess firing automatic weapons into the vehicle doesn't "needlessly put anyone's life at risk." :rolleyes:
theHawk
02-09-2007, 04:12 PM
I guess firing automatic weapons into the vehicle doesn't "needlessly put anyone's life at risk." :rolleyes:
Neither is a speeding car for someone standing in front of it, especially in a war zone, eh?
Gaffer
02-09-2007, 06:52 PM
I guess firing automatic weapons into the vehicle doesn't "needlessly put anyone's life at risk." :rolleyes:
Fire an automatic weapon into a speeding vehicle in a war zone where such vehicles are KNOWN to carry suicide bombers is sensible, not needless.
The italians PAID the terrorists for her release and then tried to sneak her out. It was the fault of the itialians doing the operation. Not the soldier that was just doing his job and protecting himself. The unfortunate part is that the guy rescuing her got killed and she survived, should have been the other way around.
pegwinn
02-09-2007, 09:14 PM
You're right, I should've said "man slaughter."
What you should have done was applied the USA standard of "innocent until proven guilty".
Gaffer
02-09-2007, 11:34 PM
What you should have done was applied the USA standard of "innocent until proven guilty".
Very true. And he was shown to have commited justifiable homicide. Case closed.
Are these checkpoints obvious? I mean really obvious?
Because it seems we hear about these similar stories pretty regularly.
It seems that well-meaning people would know to stop at such places.
Hobbit
02-10-2007, 01:49 AM
Are these checkpoints obvious? I mean really obvious?
Because it seems we hear about these similar stories pretty regularly.
It seems that well-meaning people would know to stop at such places.
You would think that, seeing as how, as I understand it, military checkpoints are basically clusters of heavy military hardware on a road. The soldiers at these checkpoints will also signal every vehicle to stop for inspection...unless they drive straight towards the checkpoint at break-neck speeds, in which case they point their guns, wait a second to see if the car slows down, then fire.
You would think that, seeing as how, as I understand it, military checkpoints are basically clusters of heavy military hardware on a road. The soldiers at these checkpoints will also signal every vehicle to stop for inspection...unless they drive straight towards the checkpoint at break-neck speeds, in which case they point their guns, wait a second to see if the car slows down, then fire.
I think it's futile to second guess these situations. There are
outright war crimes that happen, I think it's rare or occasional,
not as a rule. Errors will happen, if in a split-second they have
to decide if they are being threatened. Everyone has a right to
defend their life. Certainly people in these areas are aware
that they have to yield to soldiers in military uniforms with guns,
or suffer the outcome.
Gunny
02-10-2007, 10:49 AM
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
Substantiate your allegation of "murder." The Italians refused to stop at a checkpoint. Had it been a car bomb and the soldiers NOT fired on it for refusing to stop, you'd be wanting their asses for THAT.
ROE's are NOT lose-lose deals. In thier position, I'd have emptied the mag.
trobinett
02-10-2007, 02:33 PM
Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine:
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
If the Italians had been manning the checkpoint, they would of called in an air-strike.:blowup:
Like I said earlier, its ridiculous.:alcoholic:
pegwinn
02-10-2007, 04:40 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=12567#post12567)
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Substantiate your allegation of "murder." The Italians refused to stop at a checkpoint. Had it been a car bomb and the soldiers NOT fired on it for refusing to stop, you'd be wanting their asses for THAT.
ROE's are NOT lose-lose deals. In thier position, I'd have emptied the mag.
Heh. Before my unit deployed to Iraq I held a formation and bluntly told them that the ROES were advisory only if you believed it was a life or death situation. I was informally counseled for that speech by others above me. Since that time the ROES have tightened up to even sillier standard which are now putting my son in law at risk. God and the Commandant won't let me back in, so I get really fucking pissed at folks who badmouth thier betters who are over there.
Here's the deal. Checkpoint warnings are posted out of small arms range. When they get within SMAW range if they haven't obviously made an attempt to stop then the vehicle is eligible for scrap iron. Normally there is a crew serve somewhere to ensure the occupants cannot move more than a foot or three without getting whacked.
And yet, we still shackle em with ROEs that are concocted by the state department. These ROES kill checkpoint watch standers pretty regularly. We (meaning the state department and the long haired dope smoking candy asses) haven't learned from Beirut. And so, if one idiot eyetalian got greased..... TMFB.
Gunny
02-11-2007, 10:59 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Hagbard Celine http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=12567#post12567)
These soldiers murdered someone and all the other posters are doing is making excuses for them. They obviously believe that soldiers are above the law.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Heh. Before my unit deployed to Iraq I held a formation and bluntly told them that the ROES were advisory only if you believed it was a life or death situation. I was informally counseled for that speech by others above me. Since that time the ROES have tightened up to even sillier standard which are now putting my son in law at risk. God and the Commandant won't let me back in, so I get really fucking pissed at folks who badmouth thier betters who are over there.
Here's the deal. Checkpoint warnings are posted out of small arms range. When they get within SMAW range if they haven't obviously made an attempt to stop then the vehicle is eligible for scrap iron. Normally there is a crew serve somewhere to ensure the occupants cannot move more than a foot or three without getting whacked.
And yet, we still shackle em with ROEs that are concocted by the state department. These ROES kill checkpoint watch standers pretty regularly. We (meaning the state department and the long haired dope smoking candy asses) haven't learned from Beirut. And so, if one idiot eyetalian got greased..... TMFB.
That right ... just get me started on the bureacratic bumbling going on .....:bang3:
pegwinn
02-11-2007, 11:09 PM
That right ... just get me started on the bureacratic bumbling going on .....:bang3:
I would never, ever, attempt to get a fellow SNCO going on a rant......
Gunny
02-11-2007, 11:31 PM
I would never, ever, attempt to get a fellow SNCO going on a rant......
Get rid of the politicians and some officers, and we could secure Iraq within a month.
pegwinn
02-11-2007, 11:43 PM
Keep the pols and officers and simply get rid of the ROES. Quit lying about the reasons we are there and instruct the theater commander to simply win the freaking war. Same month, less trauma on the left.
I would never, ever, attempt to get a fellow SNCO going on a rant......
Glad to hear that...we all know that SNCOs rarely go on a rant and it would be unfair to goad them into something unnatural like that!
I don't know who came up with the ROEs over there but they look like they were written by Michael Moore and edited by Jane Fonda.
Another thing they need to do (besides give clear and concise orders) is to keep the politicians and lawyers out of it. The President is the CiC, not Congress, not the MSM, and it sure as hell isn't some lib college kid who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the sole. They also need to tell Europe to STFU. If they have something to say, choose one side or the other and then say it, but be prepared to accept responsibility for their statements and actions.
Pale Rider
02-12-2007, 10:05 AM
So I guess the answers are "no" and "yes" respectively.
No doubt that is what you see, as an anti American military advocate.
Gunny
02-12-2007, 09:01 PM
Glad to hear that...we all know that SNCOs rarely go on a rant and it would be unfair to goad them into something unnatural like that!
That's because we're so even-tempered, polite and all.:)
I don't know who came up with the ROEs over there but they look like they were written by Michael Moore and edited by Jane Fonda.
Another thing they need to do (besides give clear and concise orders) is to keep the politicians and lawyers out of it. The President is the CiC, not Congress, not the MSM, and it sure as hell isn't some lib college kid who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the sole. They also need to tell Europe to STFU. If they have something to say, choose one side or the other and then say it, but be prepared to accept responsibility for their statements and actions.
The President needs to reassess his political agenda and see how it falls in line with the reality of the situation. It's pursuing a politically correct solution that's the major stumbling block, IMO.
pegwinn
02-12-2007, 09:36 PM
Hey Guns. Good post but the mucking fachine won't let me rep you. So, no pay raise, nada, zip, and damn.
I dug out my ROE cards from 91 and compared them to the 03 initial version and to the current version that an Army National Guard Sergeant showed me. He just got back last month.
I would like to make a hangmans noose out of 550 cord and string up the folks who decided that wars had to be bloodless things where it's better for your own guys to die than it is to blow up a church being used as a firebase.
The President needs to reassess his political agenda and see how it falls in line with the reality of the situation. It's pursuing a politically correct solution that's the major stumbling block, IMO.
Heck, yeah! Get the place stabilized and under control; worry about the PC stuff afterwards.
Gunny
02-12-2007, 09:58 PM
Hey Guns. Good post but the mucking fachine won't let me rep you. So, no pay raise, nada, zip, and damn.
I dug out my ROE cards from 91 and compared them to the 03 initial version and to the current version that an Army National Guard Sergeant showed me. He just got back last month.
I would like to make a hangmans noose out of 550 cord and string up the folks who decided that wars had to be bloodless things where it's better for your own guys to die than it is to blow up a church being used as a firebase.
Guess it's just as well I'm sitting here now, then. If I'm taking fire, I'm returning it, and I don't care if it's the Taj Mahal. I can see making meritorious Lance Corporal REAL quick with this touchy-feely crap.
And of course, these religious nutjobs would NEVER think of hiding out in the mosques .....
pegwinn
02-12-2007, 11:41 PM
Guess it's just as well I'm sitting here now, then. If I'm taking fire, I'm returning it, and I don't care if it's the Taj Mahal. I can see making meritorious Lance Corporal REAL quick with this touchy-feely crap.
And of course, these religious nutjobs would NEVER think of hiding out in the mosques .....
You know it's going to be an interesting day in the CP when the Gunny's freq squawks "Adjust Fire, Large Mosque in the Open" and when you get to the ordnance line you request FASCAM
:boom2:
Gunny
02-13-2007, 10:27 PM
You know it's going to be an interesting day in the CP when the Gunny's freq squawks "Adjust Fire, Large Mosque in the Open" and when you get to the ordnance line you request FASCAM
:boom2:
I was thinking beehive rounds myself. Might as well take out the neigborhood while I'm at it.
I was thinking beehive rounds myself. Might as well take out the neigborhood while I'm at it.
Well, if you are going to do that, a plain old TOT battalion 6 with HE (talking 155s here) is cheaper, more intimidating and way more devastating. Follow that up with FASCAM on all entry and egress routes just to make sure we dont have any further problems.
trobinett
02-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Well, if you are going to do that, a plain old TOT battalion 6 with HE (talking 155s here) is cheaper, more intimidating and way more devastating. Follow that up with FASCAM on all entry and egress routes just to make sure we dont have any further problems.
Finally, some ROE, that make sense.
When might we expect these to come "on line"?
Finally, some ROE, that make sense.
When might we expect these to come "on line"?
Just as soon as I become Emporer of the Universe!
Hobbit
02-14-2007, 12:36 PM
Humanity and justice are the principles on which to govern a state, but not an army; opportunism and flexibility, on the other hand, are military rather than civic virtues.
By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
Hagbard Celine
02-14-2007, 01:52 PM
No doubt that is what you see, as an anti American military advocate.
Hey sorry about being a dick the other day. I'm not "anti American military"--by the way the proper nomenclature would be "anti US military"--I just think that our country's military policy is way too liberal. We send our troops in for every damn skirmish that pops up around the globe and we revere our troops like they're something more than blue collar government workers, which is what they are. I mean realisitically if you take away the overblown reverence that is attached to being a troop, that is what you are. You're a gun for hire for the government. I just don't buy into the "troop worship" that seems to pervade everyone's view of the military.
I think the veterans of WWII deserved that reverence because they did save the planet from the Axis of Evil and the veterans of Vietnam and Korea deserve our respect because they were drafted. But every military adventure since then seems to me to have been avoidable in the sense that none of them posed the threat of world domination and the soldiers involved volunteered for service. It seems to me that the modern US government has used the military more as a means to advance its own political or economic agenda than as a defensive force for the nation's well being. For putting themselves in harms way the military deserves our respect, but the hero worship and unwavering, unreasonable defense that they get from their "supporters" makes me a little sick. It seems like nothing military related can be questioned without some zealot bowing up to call you unpatriotic or anti-troop or some other moronic moniker. These are usually the people who have a confederate and US flag flying on the back of their trucks simultaneously.
pegwinn
02-14-2007, 09:51 PM
Well, if you are going to do that, a plain old TOT battalion 6 with HE (talking 155s here) is cheaper, more intimidating and way more devastating. Follow that up with FASCAM on all entry and egress routes just to make sure we dont have any further problems.
All I wanted was to watch em try to go in and out of the mosque. I'm all for upgrading the plan though.
darin
02-14-2007, 10:03 PM
Hello MOAB?? :)
pegwinn
02-14-2007, 10:11 PM
We send our troops in for every damn skirmish that pops up around the globe and we revere our troops like they're something more than blue collar government workers, which is what they are. I mean realisitically if you take away the overblown reverence that is attached to being a troop, that is what you are. You're a gun for hire for the government. I just don't buy into the "troop worship" that seems to pervade everyone's view of the military. And just who is it that physically ensures you have the right to feel that way without fear of getting your ass kicked?
I think the veterans of WWII deserved that reverence because they did save the planet from the Axis of Evil and the veterans of Vietnam and Korea deserve our respect because they were drafted. Actually the people of our nation deserve the same reverence because they didn't blanch at the thought of offending the enemy. They were tougher then. Must be the DDT.
But every military adventure since then seems to me to have been avoidable in the sense that none of them posed the threat of world domination and the soldiers involved volunteered for service. And yet, dead is still dead and heroic is still heroic. It's all about the scale.
It seems to me that the modern US government has used the military more as a means to advance its own political or economic agenda than as a defensive force for the nation's well being. First smart thing I've read in your post. Carry on.
For putting themselves in harms way the military deserves our respect, but the hero worship and unwavering, unreasonable defense that they get from their "supporters" makes me a little sick. Actually I think it's your concience getting to you. But, I could be wrong.
It seems like nothing military related can be questioned without some zealot bowing up to call you unpatriotic or anti-troop or some other moronic moniker. Actually you can question the hell out of the military. They will be more open than your average corporate exec. Of course sometimes the truth hurts. But at least when they tell you that you have no need to know, they are being honest and forthright.
These are usually the people who have a confederate and US flag flying on the back of their trucks simultaneously.
I posted this at my blog. I also posted it at dailykos. The original reference is to this blog is here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=728) and you can check dailykos under the user name PEGWINN2. It's not a perfect response to your specific post, but I think it gets the job done.
BT
I missed this one. But it was caught by Stephanie at debate policy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=10464#post10464). Essentially the dummies at Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/4/94215/72624)have leaped on the bandwagon to slam the military based on a story in the Washington Post (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html). To them I say Get Real...
For starters you need to understand that slamming the troops merely demonstrates that you are idiots in the mold of the nutjobs who spit on troops in the sixties. Then you need to look at your general attitude, summed up in the second link...
n00161's diary
This, of course, is a point I have brought up many times and the Milblogs when crazy then. You, the military, are the servants of the people. That is what you signed up for. We send you to war and we bring you home. We tell you when to wake up and when to go to bed. If you do not like that, GET OUT. But, that is the life you chose.
In reality we are not servants of the people. You, the people, get no say in hiring, firing, employing, disciplining, using, or abusing us. IN fact: You the people are in general inferior to those of us who wear or have worn a uniform in service to our country.
Yeah, that's right, you the people are generally inferior. After reading the links All I could think of was: These idiots are thinking of the Military specifically as if they were simply "those people"
Well...
Those people are physically superior. They are physically superior to the American (and I suspect Canadian) norm. Your average American citizen simply isn't physically fit enough to chase anyone a quarter of a mile and still have the energy reserves to subdue him. Your average Canadian citizen simply isn't physically fit enough to march with sixty to eighty (or more) pounds of gear in extreme climates for a mile let alone the standard of forty klicks and and still have the energy reserves to dig in and fight if needed.
The US Military folks are mentally superior. Your basic average citizen (of either nation) isn't trained or equipped to respond well to crisis. It requires a mental fortitude to not surrender to hardship that is lacking in most of the citizenry. The problem is that they are not trainable. It's fundamentally a lack of the needed will to dominate a situation.
Military folks are more adaptable. Mr or Mrs average American/Canadian doesn't adapt quickly or well. The adage "adapt or die" normally means that Mr./Mrs. Average will die. The public servants consistently adapt faster and more effectively. Failure to adapt is what lets the enemy win.
Those people are morally and ethically superior. Our CanAmerican citizens don't score high on morals or ethics in most cases. It's not that they are evil, it's that they get what mom or dad teaches them with a smattering of whatever they pick up here and there. "Those people" you tend to start with a higher set of values and then they receive additional and ongoing training.
On any given day of the week you pick a hundred average citizens and a hundred of "those people" and test em. You will find that they are physically fitter (the reason is not relevant), and they are mentally sharper. If you check the demographics on crime you will find that "those people" are about the same on minor crime such as traffic citations but far less on felonies. The demographic search should include courts martial as well.
You, the people, will argue that if you had the training then .... I agree that the training they get, and the application of it in daily life, and the continued (in many cases) application of it makes them in general better than the folks they serve.
Take physical fitness for example: I am forty-two and holding (till June anyway). I can still run over five miles and I am holding at my ideal weight. Check the demographic information on Americans and you will find that society is becoming fatter and more lethargic. So, it doesn't matter whether you give credit to genetics, or to training, I am still physically superior to most Americans.
The same applies to mental fitness. The average American isn't trained in critical observations skills (ala the cops), or rapid problem solving (ala the firemen and .mil), or immediate actions in emergencies (ala the EMT). That same training will allow me (as a retired military man) to observe, orient, decide, and take action faster and more effectively on my civil job than the untrained counterpart. Most of the folks who wash out of recruit training (.mil) or entry level academy (cops/emts) fail training because they are not mentally able to continuously deal with the stress of training. They are not accustomed to being held accountable without being allowed an excuse. They have grown up being conditioned that "it isn't really your fault" when they fail. IF you look at our current educational process there is less stress applied to the students than ever before. Perhaps it helps the learning environment, but it doesn't keep thier heads cool during an auto crash.
If we try to put it together I have an example to share: About three months ago a ford expedition t-boned a Saturn coupe as me and my wife were making a turn. She stopped our car and began dialing 911 as I ran to the car. He was bleeding from three places and was going into shock. Other citizens gathered around. I applied a tourniquet to his worst bleeder using a belt, I cut away his seat belt to improve his breathing and one of the non-panicking citizens helped me calm him (the victim) down. His leg was obviously broken and had we allowed him to move, it would have been worse for him. His screams were agitating those who were gawking. Within five and a half minutes of the call the EMS arrived. I exited stage right as the real professionals took over. I gave my name to a cop in case they wanted to talk later.
The point is that I believe my training in combat first aid (severe trauma), as well as the mental discipline imposed in the service, allowed us to help that guy. The other citizen who stepped up instead of being frozen? He was an Army reservist. The rest of the onlookers likely were not callous people, they were simply (for whatever reason) unable to perform.
Then we can look at ethics and morals. But, let me ask you (the people) this: What are your Core Values and can you articulate them? Any member of the services can. Because the services core values are imprinted on them and reinforced throughout the entire career. Again, it is training, and reinforcement of both positive and negative types.
Finally, I have to say that there are those wearing a uniform that don't deserve it. Approximately ten percent of any group does not deserve to be there. Demographics again. I was speaking of the faceless groups. Individually there are awesome citizens who are highly moral, mentally and physically fit and disciplined. But they are not the norm. There are fat, lazy, and dishonest Marines or Cops as well, but they are not the norm. What is the norm is that the civil leaders of both parties are corrupt and society is easily manipulated with bread and circuses.
Oh, and we are better educated than you (the people) as well. Don't take my word for it either. Look up the stats for number of folks who graduate HS and College and compare it to the US Military.
So, when you can honestly prove that I worked for you then you can run your mouth. Until then shut up and let your betters do what they need to do.
Gunny
02-14-2007, 10:41 PM
Well, if you are going to do that, a plain old TOT battalion 6 with HE (talking 155s here) is cheaper, more intimidating and way more devastating. Follow that up with FASCAM on all entry and egress routes just to make sure we dont have any further problems.
Well, I can see why WE couldn't get anything done. We all have a different opinion on how to create a void zone from a mosque!:laugh:
Gunny
02-14-2007, 10:43 PM
All I wanted was to watch em try to go in and out of the mosque. I'm all for upgrading the plan though.
Well, you need to be more specific. I'm all for ramping up entertainment possibilities.
Well, I can see why WE couldn't get anything done. We all have a different opinion on how to create a void zone from a mosque!:laugh:
Naw, if we two got together we'd implement BOTH plans, just for the fun of it....we'd probably run out of mosques before we ran out of ideas though.
pegwinn
02-15-2007, 09:02 PM
Naw, if we two got together we'd implement BOTH plans, just for the fun of it....we'd probably run out of mosques before we ran out of ideas though.
You must pass some etc etc etc........
Hey Owner! Can we fix this? I'd be happy to sit down over a keg and discuss it........... :beer:
Gunny
02-15-2007, 10:35 PM
Naw, if we two got together we'd implement BOTH plans, just for the fun of it....we'd probably run out of mosques before we ran out of ideas though.
I think we should use the MSgt's plan on every inch of the border for five miles up to and including ....
Anyone that wants to "visit" Iraq can fly. Any unauthorized overflight of Iraq gets shot down, no questions asked ... better not be lost.
Cut off the supplies of manpower and materiel, and the "insurgency" becomes a rock-throwing affair (for them)!
Gaffer
02-15-2007, 10:52 PM
The "surge" is on going and part of it includes shutting down the borders with iraq and iran for 72 hours. And it seems all the media propaganda has paid off for them as sadr and most of his honchos have hightailed it for iran before the big push starts. Nice of the media to report when things are kicking off so the leaders can get the hell out. And they know they only have to stay gone a few months.
Gunny
02-15-2007, 10:55 PM
The "surge" is on going and part of it includes shutting down the borders with iraq and iran for 72 hours. And it seems all the media propaganda has paid off for them as sadr and most of his honchos have hightailed it for iran before the big push starts. Nice of the media to report when things are kicking off so the leaders can get the hell out. And they know they only have to stay gone a few months.
Sensationalist reporting is far more important to the MSM than any victory. Wonder what's going to happen to the MSM when the al Sadr's run the world?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.