Lt. Col. Allen West

[BigWorm]

Boomer, nice wrap up of everyone’s thoughts. Grist (I think that was your codename) it looks like you took your post away, although I don’t agree with you, there is not doubt that your post was representative of how a lot of the military feels. But for the purposes of these "parlor discussions", they really wouldn’t produce anything if everyone agreed.

One of the last things you mentioned was about how it is a new world. Another aspect I want to try and bring into the discussion is the media. These days, the commander has to deal with a journalist up his ass 24/7. Since I already mentioned that I don’t have my pubic hair yet, I will use another one of my back at TBS stories. Some of the journalists in training followed us around in the field and I can assure you they were complete idiots. It was like trying to take your girlfriends cat for a walk in the woods. What I’m getting at in a round about sort of way is that if you really think about it, it shouldn’t matter whether or not the journalist is there. But once you get into the murky water and start to dabble your toe over the line a little, then it is back to the 60’s and we are baby killers all over again.

Tanya, I’ve searched over the web, and haven’t found anything about killing civilians or boys. This is a link to the most tangible article I’ve found about the current discussion. If you think shooting armed people that want to kill you is wrong, then yup you’re on the wrong train, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3703385/

-disclaimer: All of my posts are based off of what I read from media articles, which I know to be fundamentally flawed. But you have to start with something.

 

[wink]

A previous post makes me think I that my last comment was misunderstood. Of course everyone has a right to an opinion. It is valuable, however, to know the backgoround, experiences and prejudices of the individual offering that opinion. When a pattern develops in the opinions of several posters, it is worth noteing where they are coming from. I can go on and on about the USAF Intel program, but what are the chances my perpective is as valid, let alone more valid then spsiratt's? I am impressed with the participation we get on the form by some young people. They are thoughtful and engaged in important issues. But when the thread is about, say, the relative survivability of the CH-46 vs the UH-60, I'm going to give more weight to phrogdriver's opinion then some 19 year old history major that is applying for PLC. You all are welcome to your opinions and I hope to continue to read some fine mature debate on these pages. But anyone would be a fool not to consider the sources of those opinions when particpating in the debate. If my opinion about football was as valid as Dion Sanders', I'd be on a football pregame show.

 

[phrogdriver]

Wink. My comment wasn't in regards to yours. It was in regards to Grist's statement (since removed?) to the effect that unless you've shot a man on full auto you have no right to comment. Of course having greater experience gives greater credibility, but you don't have to have actually been in the same scenario to have a valid point.

There's a lot of gray area out there. Going to either extreme is ridiculous. Yes, given 5 minutes to discover the location of the hidden nuclear weapon, I might get physical. On the other hand, endorsing mistreatment of prisoners whenever the situation gets dicey is stupid and wrong.

As far as SpecOps opinion goes, I don't give their opinion anymore credence than any those of any other combat arms MOS. They aren't always "super soldiers," they're just highly specialized ones. They do go outside the box, in more ways than one. One guy drawing crazy stuff is a Picasso; if everyone does it, it's just a bunch of retards scribbling on the walls. They have their place in our defense strategy, kind of like football special teams, to continue my earlier analogy. The conventional forces are the line, receivers, and running backs that dominate the game.

Tanya's example. I don't know where that's from. My opinion is that if you carry a gun as part of a hostile force you're going to die. If I am able, without overly endangering myself or those under me, you *might* get a chance to surrender. If you don't, too bad, age, race, creed, or physical disability be damned.

 

[phrogdriver]

Forgot something. A SpecOps forum is going to have a lot of Walter Mitty types on it. Lots of wanna-be tough guys. I'd be careful about referencing it, as another post did. Not to fault anyone, just saying to be careful.