Lone Survivor,,,,my take on the movie.

[drafter]

DISCLAIMER.......For those that have not seen the movie, QUIT READING NOW so I don't "ruin it" for you...

It's called war, not "be nice to terrorists and their family of goat herders". That said, we lost how many American lives in that incident all because they followed the STUPID rules. If they would have either tied those goat herders up and left them, or just killed them, it would have been "back to the mission at hand" time. I sat there pissed the rest of the movie.

While I'm sounding off.........I just read another thread on here where the guys just sat there and attacked each other for their opinion. Why? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, why blast them and attempt to insult and/or belittle them because they don't agree with your opinion? We come here with a common love for weapons and the American way, which is obviously going away. Why try to rip each other? To make yourself look smarter, better, more educated, wiser?
I assure you, that's not working out as planned for you. I frequent a Harley sight, and a few other special interest sight where guys come together to share their passion for various things and seldom do guys rip each other apart.
I had to leave a sport bike forum because we weren't allowed to call Michael Jackson a edit!!! My guess was, too many edit riding that model sport bike, so I sold it.

Any way, let's disagree and discus, but to slice each other up, dang, how will we ever defend our 2nd amendment and stick together when the time comes if we can't even play nice in the sand box called the internet?

 

[diverdon]

So if the edit have a particular model of sport bike do you suppose they have a preference for a particular brand or type of firearm? BTW, I did not know MJ was a edit, I thought he was a pedo, just sayn....

 

[drafter]

I'm thinking a "pedo" with little boys qualifies him as a edit. Pedo is actually worse.
Far as edit and firearms,,,,,doubt there are very many. Kinda like a straight guy playing with Barbie dolls.

 

[pmclaine]

Did this particular brand of sport bike have a seat or or only a center frame post? Just curious, could be a clue on what to avoid in the future.

 

[drafter]

Yamaha FZ1000

 

[Niles Coyote]

I didn’t care for that scene because, per the book, it was not an accurate description of how the decision was made nor the reasons behind it. The movie makes them out to be like a group of arguing school girls. I’d say read the book and you will gain a better understanding... then read Bravo 2 Zero that was also faced with the same issue in 1991 desert shield/storm.

 

[Bill Larson]

Marc Wahlberg..has never served his country in the armed forces.........like many other movie stars.... he makes his money playing army...... he`s an anti-gun democrat who supports taking your guns away.....
here`s one of his many quotes:
"Certainly, I haven't used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I'd like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing."

 

[ProImaging]

took my wife and daughter out to eat last night and to see it. both left crying. said they were fine till they showed the pictures of the actual heroes at the end. Book is better.

 

[1time]

Marc Wahlberg..has never served his country in the armed forces.........like many other movie stars.... he makes his money playing army...... he`s an anti-gun democrat who supports taking your guns away.....
here`s one of his many quotes:
"Certainly, I haven't used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I'd like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing."

What was the rest of what he said in that statement?

 

[Darkside-Six]

DISCLAIMER.......For those that have not seen the movie, QUIT READING NOW so I don't "ruin it" for you...

It's called war, not "be nice to terrorists and their family of goat herders". That said, we lost how many American lives in that incident all because they followed the STUPID rules. If they would have either tied those goat herders up and left them, or just killed them, it would have been "back to the mission at hand" time.

Well said. That is the problem we face....we have rules, the enemy does not. That is why it was so hard to win the War.

 

[drafter]

Well said. That is the problem we face....we have rules, the enemy does not. That is why it was so hard to win the War.

I, for one, would not have followed the "rules." There would have been some dead goat herders. The 8 year old was cute.....and then he will be 14 and shooting at us or being sent out as a suicide bomber. Just being honest.
Yeah, it kinda surprised me that 4 op's would argue over what to do with them. I'm glad to hear that's not how it really went down, but they STILL should have been eliminated from the equation...
As far as Wahlberg, I knew he was a piece of crap Democrat, but I wanted to see the movie, which put even more $$$ in his wallet. But he'll get his someday, believe it !!!

Shwartzkoff (<sp.) said it best......." It's not up to me to judge, just to arrange the meeting ! "

 

[Victory]

I'm thinking a "pedo" with little boys qualifies him as a edit. Pedo is actually worse.
Far as edit and firearms,,,,,doubt there are very many. Kinda like a straight guy playing with Barbie dolls.

You would think that, but not all gay dudes are little limp wrist homos. One of my machine gunners, full sleeves, and would whip the piss out any other guy in the bar was gay. Didn't find out until he left the Army, but his love for American Idol made more sense.

My buddies wife lived with a gay friend while we were deployed, and I became friends with him after we got back. I ended up taking a bunch of his gay friends shooting, because they had never been. Most were nurses, two lawyers, and owned a design company. All of them were contributing members to our society. Well all of them have guns now and are starting to really get into the gun culture. I kind of have become the go to guy that will teach gay dudes how to shoot and help them navigate in a culture that is stereotyped as a bunch of rednecks, which is scary thing for a liberal gay dude. I personally hate the gay shit and think it is an abomination, but it is more liberal voters on our side and more Americans armed and willing to protect themselves.

So watch yourself at the range, one of my gay shooters might out shoot you.

 

[Maggot]

I, for one, would not have followed the "rules." There would have been some dead goat herders. The 8 year old was cute.....and then he will be 14 and shooting at us or being sent out as a suicide bomber. Just being honest.
Yeah, it kinda surprised me that 4 op's would argue over what to do with them. I'm glad to hear that's not how it really went down, but they STILL should have been eliminated from the equation...
As far as Wahlberg, I knew he was a piece of crap Democrat, but I wanted to see the movie, which put even more $$$ in his wallet. But he'll get his someday, believe it !!!

Shwartzkoff (<sp.) said it best......." It's not up to me to judge, just to arrange the meeting ! "

And your decision to kill them would have rendered you worse than what we are fighting.

You would think that, but not all gay dudes are little limp wrist homos. One of my machine gunners, full sleeves, and would whip the piss out any other guy in the bar was gay. Didn't find out until he left the Army, but his love for American Idol made more sense.

My buddies wife lived with a gay friend while we were deployed, and I became friends with him after we got back. I ended up taking a bunch of his gay friends shooting, because they had never been. Most were nurses, two lawyers, and owned a design company. All of them were contributing members to our society. Well all of them have guns now and are starting to really get into the gun culture. I kind of have become the go to guy that will teach gay dudes how to shoot and help them navigate in a culture that is stereotyped as a bunch of rednecks, which is scary thing for a liberal gay dude. I personally hate the gay shit and think it is an abomination, but it is more liberal voters on our side and more Americans armed and willing to protect themselves.

So watch yourself at the range, one of my gay shooters might out shoot you.

I admire what you are doing. I too, find the lifestyle repugnant, but honor the right of each individual to his or her choice, if it is in fact a choice, and not the way they were born. Either way its none of my, nor the gub'mint's, business.

 

[Victory]

As for ROE, I got bitched at for dropping a JDAM on some bad guys because they hadn't shot at us yet. We were ambushed the day before in the same place on exfil, and my team spotted them on the opposing ridgeline getting ready to hit the line guys in the valley. Oh well, they never got their ambush off, and I took an ass chewing. I'll do it the same way every time, screw the ROE if it's going to get the guys we are over watching, my men, or me killed.

I thought I was going to be relieved, but my SGM came through for me.

Another ROE dilemma we had was on a shot we took around 1400m, don’t remember the exact number, it was fourteen something. Round lands 1 mil short, and sprays rocks on the 2 bad guys. They leave their rifle and radio on the rock wall they were sitting on and dive over the wall before we can get another shot off. We are pumped because we know they are going to come back for their rifle and radio. We are dialed in, so we will just take them when they come back. Well about 5 minutes later a little girl comes running into view heading for the AK and radio. She picks them up, and begins high-tailing it out of there. We decided to not take the shot, even though we could have. You do what you can live with for the rest of your life.

 

[Veer_G]

Are we gonna need popcorn, or can I put the fixin's away?

 

[clmayfield]

What was the rest of what he said in that statement?

“Well, I would love it if they could take all the guns away. Unfortunately, you can’t do that so you hope that good people in the world have them to protect the people who can’t protect themselves,” “Certainly, I haven’t used a gun anywhere other than on a movie set and I’d like to see if we could take them all away. It would be a beautiful thing."

His views on guns are pretty incoherent. But honestly, so is any actor who wields a gun in the movies and comes out against private ownership of guns.

Here is an interesting article on pro and anti-gun people:
Famous People Who Are Anti-Gun and Pro-Gun

The most interesting pro-gun people: the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. Ghandi once said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

This is Mahatma Gandhi, the pioneer in non-violent resistance.

 

[clmayfield]

Back on topic. Even if you hate the movie, you are going to hate the people who hate the movie:
Lone Survivor and Insufferable Anti-American Self-Righteousness | National Review Online

 

[KYpatriot]

As for ROE, I got bitched at for dropping a JDAM on some bad guys because they hadn't shot at us yet. We were ambushed the day before in the same place on exfil, and my team spotted them on the opposing ridgeline getting ready to hit the line guys in the valley. Oh well, they never got their ambush off, and I took an ass chewing. I'll do it the same way every time, screw the ROE if it's going to get the guys we are over watching, my men, or me killed.

I thought I was going to be relieved, but my SGM came through for me.

Another ROE dilemma we had was on a shot we took around 1400m, don’t remember the exact number, it was fourteen something. Round lands 1 mil short, and sprays rocks on the 2 bad guys. They leave their rifle and radio on the rock wall they were sitting on and dive over the wall before we can get another shot off. We are pumped because we know they are going to come back for their rifle and radio. We are dialed in, so we will just take them when they come back. Well about 5 minutes later a little girl comes running into view heading for the AK and radio. She picks them up, and begins high-tailing it out of there. We decided to not take the shot, even though we could have. You do what you can live with for the rest of your life.

This discussion is best in person rather than the internet because it is a serious subject and it is hard to gauge the seriousness of a writer on a computer screen. But Victory's post scratches the surface best I think. My perspective going in to the war and coming out were different, but not how I expected. At first I was all about winning at any cost, and then my perspective of what winning meant matured. It would take a lot more to explain what I mean but doing what you can live with, either way, is part of it. Looking in the mirror after the war and being able to distinguish yourself from what we are fighting is another. If we really are fighting for what we say we are, then it will show in our actions regardless of what it will cost us. I learned that moral courage is far more rare than physical courage. The coward has neither, the thug has the physical, but the best of us will have both. We must have both if the America of the future will bear any resemblance to the principles laid down in the Declaration so long ago. Our actions, not what we say, define who we are and what we really care about.

 

[Graham]

Lone Survivor,,,,my take on the movie.

In my opinion we are, in this country, at the core of a military debate that will probably last for at least the next ten years. The question we are struggling with is this:

How do we deal with the increasing complexity of forces and methods on a tactical level when irregular warfare has become not only a specific strategy in and of itself but also the strategic norm?

This question/problem appears to be giving chaos theory a very real military dimension.

Policy makers can no longer simply attach a strategy to a moral or ethical position, create ROEs, then declare that because of having this process in place their side is the honorable one. Why? Because elements of an irregular warfare strategy can be used by both evil people and good people to accomplish both good and bad ends.

What Victory pointed out so well in his posts is, at the operational level, how does the individual soldier tell who is good and who is evil without knowing who they actually are and what aims they are trying to achieve?

I'm not sure that it is always possible.

 

[KYpatriot]

In my opinion we are, in this country, at the core of a military debate that will probably last for at least the next ten years. The question we are struggling with is this:

How do we deal with the increasing complexity of forces and methods on a tactical level when irregular warfare has become not only a specific strategy in and of itself but also the strategic norm?

This question/problem appears to be giving chaos theory a very real military dimension.

Policy makers can no longer simply attach a strategy to a moral or ethical position, create ROEs, then declare that because of having this process in place their side is the honorable one. Why? Because elements of an irregular warfare strategy can be used by both evil people and good people to accomplish both good and bad ends.

What Victory pointed out so well in his posts is, at the operational level, how does the individual soldier tell who is good and who is evil without knowing who they actually are and what aims they are trying to achieve?

I'm not sure that it is always possible.

Perhaps if we were more serious about what really constitutes a threat to national security worthy of the sacrifice of blood and treasure of the United States citizen then we wouldn't have to wrestle with Grahams apt questions. The fog of war will always create difficult circumstances for the individual warfighter. However in this case the entire national strategy is non-sensical because it is a "war on terror". How does a commander go to war against a tactic? What constitutes victory, the absence of violence in the entire world? Good luck with that. We will not have clear objectives for the warfighter and his commander, and thus a path to victory, until we decide to go to war with the real enemy, the ideology of these people instead of the tactic they are employing. If we don't have the stomach for that we should stay home until such time as we do.

Honest men may debate the tactics employed in WWII, such as firebombing entire cities, and often do. There is little debate though that the Nazi ideology and anyone who espoused it was our enemy, and thus the eradication of that ideology from positions of power was the goal. From that clear objectives could be met like stepping stones to final victory. One thing was for sure, no one ever tossed out phrases like "well he is a moderate Nazi" or "We aren't at war with Nazism, just those Nazis that commit violence" No. We had clarity of purpose, and thus a path to victory, because we decided who the enemy was and were honest enough with ourselves to say so and do something about it. Until such time as our leadership regains that kind of honesty and clarity of purpose, they have no business placing the sons and daughters of this country in harms way in a politically correct half appeasement half police action pseudo war. How can the individual warfighter possibly have moral clarity of purpose when his own leadership doesn't have the moral courage to even define the enemy, much less devise a strategy to defeat them?

 

[Hookturnr]

..nail on the head KY...nail right on the head

 

[woojos]

The most interesting pro-gun people: the Dalai Lama and Ghandi. Ghandi once said, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

I remember reading about the Dalai Lama's response, not sure which Dalai Lama it was, to a guy who asked him what he would do if he was faced with a human threat posed to kill him. Essentially, it was the self defense question and how far does this philosophy of peace/do no harm extend. The guy specifically asked if he would "turn the other cheek". I don't remember the Dalai Lama's exact words, but it was something like "better to fight today, so you can be peaceful tomorrow".

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

Perhaps if we fought wars as wars, or required those who start them to fight them,... things might change.

Very easy to start something and be a profiteer if you don't have to participate, or stand the battlefield effects the rest of your life.

 

[Phil1]

Perhaps if we fought wars as wars, or required those who start them to fight them,... things might change.

Very easy to start something and be a profiteer if you don't have to participate, or stand the battlefield effects the rest of your life.

Polit*&ns lead the way!!

Perhaps the Swiss are right they haven't been in a war since???

I guess they just don't have "national interests"!!

 

[pmclaine]

Perhaps if we were more serious about what really constitutes a threat to national security worthy of the sacrifice of blood and treasure of the United States citizen then we wouldn't have to wrestle with Grahams apt questions...We will not have clear objectives for the warfighter and his commander, and thus a path to victory, until we decide to go to war with the real enemy, the ideology of these people instead of the tactic they are employing. If we don't have the stomach for that we should stay home until such time as we do.

Seems like some have figured out how to threaten national security, are serious about their aims, and they are committed to their ideology.....

Media blackout: Muslim man found stuck in pipe at New Jersey water facility - Norfolk Crime | Examiner.com

Unsubstantiated report this jerkoff was one of the guys up in Massachusetts in the incident referenced further along in the article.

 

[EventHorizon]

Perhaps if we were more serious about what really constitutes a threat to national security worthy of the sacrifice of blood and treasure of the United States citizen then we wouldn't have to wrestle with Grahams apt questions. The fog of war will always create difficult circumstances for the individual warfighter. However in this case the entire national strategy is non-sensical because it is a "war on terror". How does a commander go to war against a tactic? What constitutes victory, the absence of violence in the entire world? Good luck with that. We will not have clear objectives for the warfighter and his commander, and thus a path to victory, until we decide to go to war with the real enemy, the ideology of these people instead of the tactic they are employing. If we don't have the stomach for that we should stay home until such time as we do.

Honest men may debate the tactics employed in WWII, such as firebombing entire cities, and often do. There is little debate though that the Nazi ideology and anyone who espoused it was our enemy, and thus the eradication of that ideology from positions of power was the goal. From that clear objectives could be met like stepping stones to final victory. One thing was for sure, no one ever tossed out phrases like "well he is a moderate Nazi" or "We aren't at war with Nazism, just those Nazis that commit violence" No. We had clarity of purpose, and thus a path to victory, because we decided who the enemy was and were honest enough with ourselves to say so and do something about it. Until such time as our leadership regains that kind of honesty and clarity of purpose, they have no business placing the sons and daughters of this country in harms way in a politically correct half appeasement half police action pseudo war. How can the individual warfighter possibly have moral clarity of purpose when his own leadership doesn't have the moral courage to even define the enemy, much less devise a strategy to defeat them?

There was no war on Nazism as an ideology, there was war against Germany and others and they were not a homogeneous lot philosophically. Ideologically speaking they all were a hodge-podge of socialist, central-planning fascists that really made no sense. If there was a war on fascism then someone should have informed the US foreign policy hacks in the '50s, 60's, 70's and 80's during which time a number of horrendous fascist thugs were propped up in order to 'protect' us from the evils of communism while the world was safe under the custodial oversight of Pinochet and his ilk.

The war with Germany was because Hitler wanted the world, he was developing rockets that could flatten it from his home turf. It's even debatable that there would have been a war with Germany for this country had Japan not forced the hand of the US into fighting. There was no ideological call to arms in the US when Poland was invaded...

There are Nazis here in the US, there are Nazis everywhere and yet, there is no Nazi threat. It's not the ideology because there are few that are more overtly violent and destructive than Nazism, it's the will behind it to execute and right now, the muslim world seems to attract those who want to see the world burn and are willing to act on that. In my view, the catalyst for crazies to discover a framework by which they can live out their crazy shit is a 'higher power'. The rest is just details and glossaries.

Good luck fighting a religion btw...!

EDIT: In regards to the movie, all I've heard from people who are in that community or its approximates is that they wish the coverage and supply of content would cease. Out of respect for that I'm not interested in viewing it. If I want to know 'the real deal' I'll just fire up my COD4 Special Edition and I'm good....

 

[KYpatriot]

I'm gonna think about that one EH as I'm not sure I agree. Power in Germany seemed pretty homogeneously concentrated in nazis to me. The hesitance to get involved in Europe's never ending wars doesn't imply to me that we were unaware or unappreciative of the evil of nazi ideology, but rather that we knew it would be messy. We wanted to be sure we had no other choice, that our own security was indeed threatened. I wish we had that kind of hesitancy again.

Once we went though, we didn't hold back like we do today. We were never going to accept a "victory" in that war in which Nazis remained in power. In fact, just the opposite happened, in the post war occupation there was an organized effort to "de-nazify" Germans to help ensure that as many vestiges of that ideology were stamped out as possible. This included pretty hard stuff - marching townspeople past mounds of decaying bodies in concentration camps. Forcing the population to go to film documentaries showing exactly what their Nazi leaders had done to their friends and neighbors. Can you still find nazis today? Sure. It is tough to destroy an idea. Does that mean the de-nazification was a failure? Absolutely not. It was so effective that some of it was codified into law by the Germans themselves, throw out a nazi salute in Germany and you'll see. Many weren't willing participants anyway, they lost their power to do much by not speaking up early enough before the nazis consolidated power. They still have national guilt over it, so I think we did an excellent job dismantling an ideology, as well as it can be done anyway. It is no accident that it is no longer a force for world domination-we stomped it so hard that its brand was broken, hopefully forever. Just the symbols of that specific form of fascism will elicit disgust in most people, and the name Hitler is synonymous with evil personified even today 70 years later - that is how well we destroyed the brand. Will those ideas be repackaged and sold in a slightly different form? Yes, I guess they will since men's desire to rule over other men seems to know no bounds. Speaking of that...

I am trying not to stray into religion from military theory so I will only say this regarding Islam. Islam is far more than a religion...it is every bit as much a political system as it is a religion, just like National Socialism was. Its a lot trickier because there are over a billion of them unlike in Germany. But look at those videos of Hitler's speeches and tell me that wasn't a worship service. Likewise look what happens in countries where Islamists have all the power and tell me it isn't a political system. Until we have the will to be honest about what happens when Islam is given full expression, we are going to keep losing. We give moral legitimacy and cover to them by allowing them to shelter in the safe haven of religion in a way we never would have dreamed of for the nazis.

These terrorists are fighting to stay in power like any political party. When they have that power they exercise it as a political entity, just like the Nazis did, to the exclusion of any other ideas, just like the Nazis, to the advantage of the state and the enslavement of the individual, just like the Nazis. When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, a serious hunter starts wondering when duck season begins. Until then I expect exactly zero progress in the "war on terror" whatever that is. OR maybe the answer isn't a direct confrontation but just to let the power of our ideas win and let theirs fail like the cold war. Either way something needs to change because so far this hunting season we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[MosesTheTank]

This discussion is best in person rather than the internet because it is a serious subject and it is hard to gauge the seriousness of a writer on a computer screen. But Victory's post scratches the surface best I think. My perspective going in to the war and coming out were different, but not how I expected. At first I was all about winning at any cost, and then my perspective of what winning meant matured. It would take a lot more to explain what I mean but doing what you can live with, either way, is part of it. Looking in the mirror after the war and being able to distinguish yourself from what we are fighting is another. If we really are fighting for what we say we are, then it will show in our actions regardless of what it will cost us. I learned that moral courage is far more rare than physical courage. The coward has neither, the thug has the physical, but the best of us will have both. We must have both if the America of the future will bear any resemblance to the principles laid down in the Declaration so long ago. Our actions, not what we say, define who we are and what we really care about.

[MENTION=25047]KYpatriot[/MENTION] Spot on brother. I have banged out dozens of passages only to delete and never post them as I see no way to plop down on an internet forum the gravity of what is being said.

I do not remember who gave me this advice, but what really counts is what you do when no one is looking. That is who you really are and is what you will have to live with.

 

[KYpatriot]

Thanks Moses. I am debating on whether to watch it, to what end. It won't be entertainment to me. I know it will just $%$ me off, and I have had enough of that.

 

[drafter]

Thanks Moses. I am debating on whether to watch it, to what end. It won't be entertainment to me. I know it will just $%$ me off, and I have had enough of that.

My opinion, it was just $7.00 and 2 hours of my life I'll never get back. And it pissed me off, just saying.

 

[KYpatriot]

Yeah thats what I figured. The problem is those who will get it don't need to watch it, and many who watch it won't get it. Still, it was a movie that needed to be made because so many are just completely uniformed about what is going on because they don't read or pay attention. Putting it in movie form reaches the wider audience.

 

[Rob01]

It's a single story in a big war. Shouldn't be looked at as more than that or any deep political stance. Shows how brothers in arms fought and died together and what they were up against. Does it piss you off when you watch Titanic because they didn't have enough lifeboats? Lone Survivor is a TRUE story. Wasn't writers doing something. It's what happened.

You should go see it if for nothing more than honoring those that died and the one who lived.

 

[Whiskey9514]

I thought it was nice that the suppressors weren't completely silent like In most bullshit movie situations

 

[Mark williams]

For you guys here in the service, thank you very much! I know little about the service and nothing about war. But it pisses me off to see my American brothers put in no win situations while their losing their life's!

 

[AKONA]

Many people probably though about tying them up. Maybe not ideal but maybe a better choice? In the end nobody will ever know.

IMO, we do not fight wars anymore. We go and fight "politically correct conflicts" that will never end. Russians are still dealing with the aftermath
of the occupation of those God's forsaken lands and they surely didn't care two hoots about politically correct choices.
Unlike in WWII we knew exactly who the enemy was and we used everything we got to exterminate them, whatever end necessary.
Now we this new islamofascist movements that crop everywhere we think it is different because we think of them as with lower standards
and primitive still. But everyone is an enemy and everyone are allies maybe for the day all the same time. Right is wrong and wrong is right.
Up is down and left is right and count on nothing from anyone other than your brothers.

The individual soldier might be faced with an impossible decision at some point or another. This story simply tells what happened
and what could happen again. Politicians do not care. They put the military on very precarious positions where they need to take
care of very complex scenarios yet they must be careful of what they do because CNN, Al jazeera and alike are watching over their shoulders.

You cannot fight real wars w/o enemies and w/o weapons or tactics one cannot use anyway . Soldiers are trained to go and
get it done whatever it takes and not to do politics or entertain ethical, social and moral debates.
Politicians and their disastrous foreign policy (or total lack of it) have put the military in these precarious position and we
have accepted this as our new reality, our new standard and we arrived here because our complacent and morally convenient choices.
Even recently the politicians denied support when people on the ground were taking fire and dying. That is immoral and treasonous but I see
all the responsible people still out there in the same jobs.

Many do not want to hear about those tragedies unless it becomes entertainment on cool action movie. Otherwise if they hear all these
problems they simply rather switch the channels to see Monday's nights football game or the American Idol if that is still
on TV or some other stupid reality show, I am not sure. These problems are too involved, too complex and uncomfortable and it
becomes and inconvenience that we conveniently insulate from.
WE pay somebody to take care of all the dirty work yet we do not want to hear about any violations of any codes of ethics.

"These people are trouble?... send them the legions!"

When I say we I don't refer as us here, many great patriots here but we as a society have failed to our kids including those giving up
everything over there including their youth, their innocence, their own limbs and even their lives.
We owe it to them to fix this mess. We should have never allowed things to get this far domestically and abroad.

If you like good movies do watch one of the best movies in the last two decades, Brothers. It is a drama that signifies the impact
of these endless "conflicts" in many homes here in America and I think possibly one of the best performances, if not the best, of Natalie Portman
and Tobey Maguire.

 

[EventHorizon]

I'm gonna think about that one EH as I'm not sure I agree. Power in Germany seemed pretty homogeneously concentrated in nazis to me. The hesitance to get involved in Europe's never ending wars doesn't imply to me that we were unaware or unappreciative of the evil of nazi ideology, but rather that we knew it would be messy. We wanted to be sure we had no other choice, that our own security was indeed threatened. I wish we had that kind of hesitancy again.

Once we went though, we didn't hold back like we do today. We were never going to accept a "victory" in that war in which Nazis remained in power. In fact, just the opposite happened, in the post war occupation there was an organized effort to "de-nazify" Germans to help ensure that as many vestiges of that ideology were stamped out as possible. This included pretty hard stuff - marching townspeople past mounds of decaying bodies in concentration camps. Forcing the population to go to film documentaries showing exactly what their Nazi leaders had done to their friends and neighbors. Can you still find nazis today? Sure. It is tough to destroy an idea. Does that mean the de-nazification was a failure? Absolutely not. It was so effective that some of it was codified into law by the Germans themselves, throw out a nazi salute in Germany and you'll see. Many weren't willing participants anyway, they lost their power to do much by not speaking up early enough before the nazis consolidated power. They still have national guilt over it, so I think we did an excellent job dismantling an ideology, as well as it can be done anyway. It is no accident that it is no longer a force for world domination-we stomped it so hard that its brand was broken, hopefully forever. Just the symbols of that specific form of fascism will elicit disgust in most people, and the name Hitler is synonymous with evil personified even today 70 years later - that is how well we destroyed the brand. Will those ideas be repackaged and sold in a slightly different form? Yes, I guess they will since men's desire to rule over other men seems to know no bounds. Speaking of that...

I am trying not to stray into religion from military theory so I will only say this regarding Islam. Islam is far more than a religion...it is every bit as much a political system as it is a religion, just like National Socialism was. Its a lot trickier because there are over a billion of them unlike in Germany. But look at those videos of Hitler's speeches and tell me that wasn't a worship service. Likewise look what happens in countries where Islamists have all the power and tell me it isn't a political system. Until we have the will to be honest about what happens when Islam is given full expression, we are going to keep losing. We give moral legitimacy and cover to them by allowing them to shelter in the safe haven of religion in a way we never would have dreamed of for the nazis.

These terrorists are fighting to stay in power like any political party. When they have that power they exercise it as a political entity, just like the Nazis did, to the exclusion of any other ideas, just like the Nazis, to the advantage of the state and the enslavement of the individual, just like the Nazis. When it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, a serious hunter starts wondering when duck season begins. Until then I expect exactly zero progress in the "war on terror" whatever that is. OR maybe the answer isn't a direct confrontation but just to let the power of our ideas win and let theirs fail like the cold war. Either way something needs to change because so far this hunting season we keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

While I agree with you on the self defeating ROE's I don't track with likening it to WWII. The ROE of WWII was already well established when Poland was invaded. Full mechanized war with all weapons at disposal. The enemy was decent enough to wear uniforms and fight in much the manner that was recognized as to be overtly hostile. Not the same in today's wars by any means. During Nazi occupation the resistance in France fought an insurgent war and the Nazi's had no qualms about being utterly barbaric towards the civilian population in much the manner that some here have suggested should be adopted. It didn't seem to crush the resistance then so no reason to think it would today.

Nazism was a cult of personality that the German's discovered a way of making it formalized. It didn't have time to transcend the personality of Hitler that more religions need to go beyond the main 'instigator'. I will accept without condition your position on Islam - it is a complete doctrine of a way of life but it's not in any way different than how other have politicized their beliefs.

I do not agree with this 'destruction of the brand' of Nazism. I firmly hold to the idea of 'never forget' but how can one remember if all evidence is wiped from memory and if the only reference to genocide in the mainstream media is to the one committed in Europe. We scarcely hear of the same committed in Africa, Bosnia etc. Personally I think the time has long past for the Germans to carry the 'shame' of actions committed by those who are scarcely alive. Atrocities happen all the time and there is NOT ONE NATION who does not have the blood of innocents elbow deep on them willingly in the name of 'national security'. The seeds of WWII were sown in the treatment that was hypocritically meted out to Germany after the defeat in WWI and the shame that they were forced to bear was the soil in which the poison of Nazism, disguised as German pride and patriotism was able to flourish. Again, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past through willful ignorance of it.

My point is this - there has seldom been a true ideological war. It's always been about gold or revenge but I agree, if and when you're going to set out and burn through blood and treasure, make it hard, swift and with as little cost as possible - on our side but not so that we lose our conscience and our identity. Many here have applauded the methods of Russians and their summary treatment of hostiles. I personally deplore it. It's not who we are and the irony of calls to imitate the actions of an autocratic state whose leadership is indifferent to the welfare of it's own people and who is truly a dictator must be bitter reading to those who have gone out to fight in the name of the US Constitution and the principles of freedom and justice.

But hey, I'm just a civvie with an extensive library in the lavatory, what do I really know?

 

[Sean the Nailer]

"Atrocities happen all the time and there is NOT ONE NATION who does not have the blood of innocents elbow deep on them willingly in the name of 'national security'."

I question that.

 

[AKONA]

Take out the "willingly" and then you will find that is the case. War is war not what politicians want to do today.
All through history some folks had to fight to the end and also confront some of the biggest moral dilemmas ever.
If anyone from the Enola Gay crew could chime in from the other world they would explain this to us with a great deal of sorrow.

 

[EventHorizon]

War is war not what politicians want to do today.
All through history some folks had to fight to the end and also confront some of the biggest moral dilemmas ever.
If anyone from the Enola Gay crew could chime in from the other world they would explain this to us with a great deal of sorrow.

I'm not worthy.

 

[KYpatriot]

While I agree with you on the self defeating ROE's I don't track with likening it to WWII. The ROE of WWII was already well established when Poland was invaded. Full mechanized war with all weapons at disposal. The enemy was decent enough to wear uniforms and fight in much the manner that was recognized as to be overtly hostile. Not the same in today's wars by any means. During Nazi occupation the resistance in France fought an insurgent war and the Nazi's had no qualms about being utterly barbaric towards the civilian population in much the manner that some here have suggested should be adopted. It didn't seem to crush the resistance then so no reason to think it would today.

Nazism was a cult of personality that the German's discovered a way of making it formalized. It didn't have time to transcend the personality of Hitler that more religions need to go beyond the main 'instigator'. I will accept without condition your position on Islam - it is a complete doctrine of a way of life but it's not in any way different than how other have politicized their beliefs.

I do not agree with this 'destruction of the brand' of Nazism. I firmly hold to the idea of 'never forget' but how can one remember if all evidence is wiped from memory and if the only reference to genocide in the mainstream media is to the one committed in Europe. We scarcely hear of the same committed in Africa, Bosnia etc. Personally I think the time has long past for the Germans to carry the 'shame' of actions committed by those who are scarcely alive. Atrocities happen all the time and there is NOT ONE NATION who does not have the blood of innocents elbow deep on them willingly in the name of 'national security'. The seeds of WWII were sown in the treatment that was hypocritically meted out to Germany after the defeat in WWI and the shame that they were forced to bear was the soil in which the poison of Nazism, disguised as German pride and patriotism was able to flourish. Again, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past through willful ignorance of it.

My point is this - there has seldom been a true ideological war. It's always been about gold or revenge but I agree, if and when you're going to set out and burn through blood and treasure, make it hard, swift and with as little cost as possible - on our side but not so that we lose our conscience and our identity. Many here have applauded the methods of Russians and their summary treatment of hostiles. I personally deplore it. It's not who we are and the irony of calls to imitate the actions of an autocratic state whose leadership is indifferent to the welfare of it's own people and who is truly a dictator must be bitter reading to those who have gone out to fight in the name of the US Constitution and the principles of freedom and justice.

But hey, I'm just a civvie with an extensive library in the lavatory, what do I really know?

LOL I too do my best work on the can!

Sometime or another we need to talk over a bottle of Ky's finest.

 

[EventHorizon]

Cigars are on me then!

 

[pre64marksman]

It was a great movie and the acting was great. The actors aren't great however in their beliefs. And yes the book was better but a lot of Marcus' view of things went into the movie, so overall it was very humbling and the theater was the most quiet and reverent that I've ever seen a theater. This movie is in my top five of war films/series, my other favs are Blackhawk Down and Band of Brothers, A Bridge Too Far and Great Raid. It was tuff to take seeing the photos of the Heros at the end just like it was tough watching the end of Great Raid with the footage of the rescued men and the Rangers and Filipinos who undertook the rescue.
Anyway I'm angry that we have some of the most anti-liberty actors playing the parts of Heros onscreen. Another one I'm worried about is Brad Cooper playing the late Chris Kyle. Cooper doesn't look like Kyle, he's smaller stature, Cooper has a court jesture personality and Kyle while a funny guy was also very steelie and intense, Cooper is not. And Cooper, well I don't know if he's as hardcore anti-gun as Wahlberg but still he's part of a majority opinion of Hollywood actors who hate the middleclass who own guns. That's the thing that angers me more, there are actors and politicians who love guns and want them only for themselves and not the rest of us, that angers me much more!

 

[pre64marksman]

BTW I also recommend Bravo Two Zero as a pretty decent film. There's conspiracy about that one, no substantiation on my part but there's rumors a lot of the main recounting of that mission conflicts with other accounts from other members of that team. Still a good movie