I just heard that some insurgent terrorists are shooting wounded marines. Now that is low. Cutting off the heads of journalists and aid workers isn't bad enough, now they can't even conform to the rules of war. What are they - Japenese?

I just e-mailed this question to Bill O'Reilly at Fox News:
He didn't show the Abu Graib photos but did show part of the video of the Marine shooting the wounded Falluja terrorist.

Errr....it seems in at least one case, we're doing the same. (I am not judging or condemning that incident).

In my book and this is IMHO - shooting a wounded individual is not the same as ashooting a wounded prisioner. From what I am hearing the marine who shot the Iraqi situation - the Iraqi had not surrendered, therefore he is still a threat. How many medals have been given out for guys doing amaizing acts of heroism while wounded?

Now if this Iraqi had his hands up and a white flag in one hand then yes major problem there.

If thats me there and I am wounded I do not surrender (I have no expectation of keeping my head - may as well fight to the death) and yes then you would have an Iraqi killing a wounder person.

As I understand it this Iraqi was playing dead - not surrendering - pretty much means to me he was hopeing to join the fight later. What that Marine did may have just saved the lives of the reporter and the brothers in his squad.

Now you have Marines out there questioning if its ok to shoot somebody because that guy may be hurt (yet isn't surrendering).

Funny the media that is trying to fry this Marine had no problem with Kerry chasing down a young teenager and shooting him in the back as the kid ran away - heck Kerry got a medal for that.

To be fair I haven't seen the video - this is from what I am hearing from friends who have seen it, plus based on responsed from people I know who have been in combat.

I did see the video.
None of us can armchair the situation, because we saw only a small tunnel vision of what happened.
Who knows what the marines had just been through, who had shot at them, who had died, etc...there is just so much to the situation.
I feel he probably made a bad mistake (especially on video <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />), and it deserves an investigation. But judge or condemn him I cannot.

Andrew, where did you get the idea that the insurgents were shooting wounded prisoners (if that's what you were implying)?

The Marine did exactly the right thing. Any insurgent attempting to imploy any deception must be treated as a threat and immediately neutralized. These depraved jihhadists have blown themselves up under white flags, booby trapped bodies and committed all kinds of deporable acts to kill our troups. Any question of intent regarding the insurgents must be answered with lethality. They have defined the rules:none, now we must apply them. If that Arab feigning death would have had a grenade in hand or in reach, the whole squad could have been killed or maimed. That was not a chance this young man was willing to take and I applaud him for his action. It is not easy to kill as he did and now he has to live with that, but it is necessary under the circumstances our fine young men face.

Matt - I was responding to the original post. As to not surrendering (was this what you mean?) I have seen nothing from the insurgency to make me believe I would live if I were to be taken prisoner by their side, there for I would fight to the death- I ain't gonna make it anyway - may as well take as many with me as possible. Noway I want my wife watching the news only to see me getting beheaded. I would much rather have her just know I was killed in the line of duty - in a battle not in the cellar of some house by 3 cowards and a knife.

BTW - there is a petition going around to support this Marine. Here

My wife and I had this conversation when I asked her if she would mind if I went over there. Thats where the "rather just know you were dead than seeing you beheaded" came from.

That bears repeating. Couldn't have said it better, myself.

In fact, this thread should have been locked after RickyD's response. What else can be said?

RSY

It was a great shot.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> good add on WMacD

To judge that Marine and his action fairly and justly as his peer, one would have to
� take the same training and instruction that he took
� rack-up the same amount and kind of combat experience
� operate under the same orders as his
� see a buddy die the day before from a booby-trapped dead terrorist
� get shot in the face the day before
� be there to face the same situation
� have to make the same decision in the same brief interval

That's all.

Simple.

Hannity.com has the more of the vidio than is being shown on the news.

As Army infantry I have always been taught and taught my men that the first time you sweep an objective you should shoot every"body" as you go through. If you sweep your objective once, then go back you must give ad to the enemy wounded. That's why you have the support element sweep an obj after the assualt teams and before you send out you epw search and you ad and litter teams. Ie; there are no wounded and you have not violated the rules of combat. If you watch the vidio the marine doing the shooting has just entered the build, which sounds like for the first time (which should be legal). That being said, be smart about who is with you and what you do. The media should not see real combat, they only want to hear how evil our marines and soldiers are and how innocent the islamic terrorist are. Therefore CYA.
If I was a Battalion Commander I would arrest the reporter for sedition and aiding the enemy. What a crock of [bleep].

Somebody should shoot the newsies, I know I was temped a time or two!
The golden rule: Payback is a BITCH!

"Somebody should shoot the newsies...."

Early one morning after an all-night overseas flight, I got off the 747-SP at JFK and had no time to waste getting over to Newark or LaGuardia for my flight home. As I came out of Customs, carrying two big and obviously heavy bags, the entire floor ahead was blocked by a small army of newsies clearly expecting some celebrity. Not one of them made any move to let me walk through the crowd.

So I just headed for one of 'em and stared through him as if he weren't there, and I didn't slow down from my rapid walk. When I got close, a startled look of alarm came suddenly across his face. When I got to where he'd been, he wasn't. I had plenty of room to walk through without my bags brushing against anybody.

I made it over to the New York Helicopter counter � then after a short chopper flight, made my flight to Phoenix � with not much time to spare.

You know, what REALLY cheezes me off (other than our own liberal media) is that the whole Muslim word is upset over a wounded combatant being shot in a mosque, but have no problem with other Muslims be-heading prisoners.

It ought to soon come to everyone that this is a war, and to win it, we need to quit being so squeamish and start busting some towel wearing heads.
7mm

Well, the lay of the land around here is pretty clear.

Nevertheless, let me just say for posterity that I am appalled and horrified by the two (two, not one) videos I've seen of US Marines "finishing off" wounded Iraqis, both of whom were quietly bleeding to death and neither of whom posed any reasonable threat at all.

Let me also say that although appalled and horrified, I am not surprised. I predicted this sort of thing back when Baby Bush sent the troops to Iraq, and I expect to see more of it. And it's not because I'm a hater of the military.

I'll make an analogy. A year or so ago, I was being used very badly at work. I was not being given any of the kind of work I was good at. Just the opposite: I was being given work I wasn't any good at and had no training for, and was pressed to do it at (what I thought was) insane speed. As might have been predicted, I ended up making a lot of mistakes, having rock-bottom morale, and getting myself into quite a bit of trouble.

Similarly, the US military is not being used in Iraq to do the kind of work it is good at. Instead, it is being used for tasks for which it was not designed and for which it has no (or at least insufficient) training and equipment. Therefore, one must expect the same sort of results.

The difference is that I was given a computer keyboard and expected to type the right commands instead of the wrong commands, while a soldier is given a rifle and expected to shoot the right people instead of the wrong people. When I screw up with a computer keyboard, I might be able to get my company mentioned on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, but I'm probably not going to be able to commit any large-scale (or even small-scale) murder.

There's also the fact that the original unprovoked invasion of Iraq was morally indefensible, which means that in order to justify it, more morally indefensible acts (such as bombing an entire city full of people, shooting indiscriminately into occupied houses, picking off civilians swimming the river to get away, anything-that-moves ROEs, and so on) are being committed. Abu Ghraib was just the beginning, and this "finishing off the wounded" business is another small step. We're going to see American war atrocities on the order of the My Lai massacre and Tiger Company if those folks aren't brought back out of there Real Soon Now.

Please don't feel that you have to tell me what an anti-American, pro-terrorist, troop-hating coward I am. I already know just what you're going to say--believe me, I've heard it many times already--and I'm sure you have more productive things to do with your time. I'm just posting this here so as to capture the date and have "I told you so" ammunition when the opportune moment comes.

I find it hard to believe that there are actually people in this country who, when we send our boys into a place to kill people, that they are offended when our boys kill people. I have to agree with Ken on this one, we don't know the whole story, and the Marine did what he thought necessary.

I was against the invasion of Iraq, but I am also a realist. We're there now, and the only way to get out with any crediblity is to finish the job, and help in the rebuilding.

The sad thing is that this young man will be sold down the river of political expediency so as to prove to the world how just and fair we are. Meanwhile, the insurgents will continue to use the dead and wounded for booby traps, behead civilians, and hide behind their own citizens during firefights.

If anyone's interested, Reuters website has raw, unedited footage of the operations in Iraq (click on the "television" link). Once you see the tactics of the insurgents, you will understand the futility of an undisciplined militia going against a professional military.

Barak...You are entitled to your opinions, which I fully read, every time. I could not disagree with you more, whether it be your cop-hating, your Bush-bashing, or your erroneous assessment of the Iraqui war/war on terrorism.

I find your attitude toward this unfortunately video-ed (but in my opinion, entirely justifiable) killing of a wounded terrorist, which the soldier had no prior knowledge of apparently, in an extremely tense, instant judgement type cse indefensible considering one of your prior posts about the guy that repeatedly rammed you with his car.

In my opinion, that soldier was far more justified doing what he did, than what you did, and I think you were justified, tho your actions are not what I would have done. I may well have done, however, exactly what that young soldier did, with the same training and in the same situation. Better safe than 6 foot under!

Had the journalist been any sort of fair, he would have turned the tape over to higher military command with a statement of concern, and kept a copy for further use, as needed, and not immediatly filed it. I do realize that time is of the essence in "news", but I think his desire for a sensationalized story outweighed his fairness and objectivity. Be it also noted, that he did go into considerable detail as to the kind of situation and stress those soldiers were dealing with, which HIS higher-uppers largely buried in small print, if reported at all.

You might consider also that Al Jazzirra has this tape virtually on a loop, 24/7 while they have yet to show the execution of the Red Cross lady, who for 30 years did nothing but good for Iraquis, while this justifiably-shot terrorist, was simply scum.

Wow. You sound just like Senator Hanoi John.

When I first heard of this "murder of the insurgent", I was furious. No way would or should our soldiers do that. That was until I realized I had heard the liberal media version.

Then I heard the rest of the story about the booby trapped bodies, etc. That changes everything.

I'd be extremely hesitant to call this Marine a "war criminal" as the liberal media are doing. They don't have a clue.

The guy more than likely had been 2 days without sleep, and had to make a split second decision under extreme stress. It was not a pre-meditated act. As was obvious by his words and tone of voice, he believed the terrorist to be "faking" death and to be a threat. He removed the threat.

I'll not shed any tears over a terrorist taking a 5.56 to the back of his mellon, mistake or not.

If this Marine is ever convicted, I hope Bush does not forget this when he leaves office, and pardons the man.

And as to the training they receive, our military, specifically our Marines and our Army Infantry, are the best trained in the world in urban warfare, or "MOUT" as we called it in the Army (Military Operations in Urban Terrain). Make no mistake about it, these guys are absolutely trained professionals, and are good at what they do, which is the most dangerous form of combat there is.

Mistakes will happen. I'd rather have our soldiers and marines err on the side of putting a terrorist in a body bag, rather than coming home in a body bag themselves. But I don't suspect you share my view now, do you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I signed the petition, and remarked,"We are in a war not a soap opera."


One more thing,
As Rush L. commented today on the radio, these terrorists are NOT covered by the Geneva Convention, it applies to uniformed troops of a State, which these guys clearly are not.

Another one more thing,
IF they wanted to, the battles could be fought in specific areas, and thereby keep the civilians in the clear...no, the terrorists hide amongst the civilians...it is this action that gets the civies killed, in my book we should just clearly anounce to the civies that we'll be killing everything within 1000 yards of every terrorist, and 5 minutes later do it.

Barak;
I've read some of your posts which made good points, BUT...
This deal is either for or against, after your last comment, you are clearly not for, It would please me to hear that you got the next bullet.

And let me add that I think the use of the term "prisoners" may be inappropriate. These guys had been wounded/killed by the first patrol, and left behind. Nowhere is mention that they had been bound, or otherwise secured from hostile action against the next GI's to come along.

If not secured, then, for all intents and purposes, they were still enemy that Patrol #2 had to deal with. From the conversation, it seems Patrol 2 thought they were dealing with a previously secured room containing only dead. A supposedly dead enemy "faking it" is obviously a potentially dangerous enemy that must be immediately neutralized.

It took far longer to type this than the soldier had time to analyze it- i.e. he fell back on training. Which is what training is for- to keep you alive when you don't have time to think.

Hmm. Are you sure you're remembering that post correctly? First, the guy only rammed me once. (He did try several other times, but I managed to elude him, handicapped as he (probably) was by drugs and/or alcohol.) Second, I didn't do a thing to him other than stay away from him until he (they, actually) gave up and turned off.

What's the hypocrisy you're alluding to here?


As I said, the lay of the land around here is pretty evident. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But when we start seeing video of US Marines releasing Iraqi prisoners, giving them a fifteen-second start, and then using them for target practice...or captured Iraqi women being hired out as sex slaves...or some other mind-blowing atrocity, born of the boredom and low morale that comes to crack troops on garrison duty in a foreign culture, combined with the we're-good-they're-evil mindset that is necessary to salve the conscience against the obviously horrible things their commanders are ordering them to do...when stuff like that starts happening, I want to be able to say, "You heard it here first."

That we're-good-they're-evil mindset is already beginning to show itself in you. You're referring to militiamen--in some cases uniformed militiamen--engaged in guerrilla warfare on their own territory against an oppressive invading foreign military force, as "terrorists."

Terrorists are people who kill innocent non-combatants in order to make a political statement.

Have you seen any of the pictures coming out of Fallujah of maimed and blown-apart women, children, and babies, victims of American bombs and missiles?


I have no more interest or confidence in what is shown by the Arab mass media than I do in what is shown by the American mass media. I haven't watched a news program--of any stripe--except by accident since Clinton took office.

Still, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that wounded enemy soldiers who pose no threat deserve to be killed because of what al-Jazeera broadcasts?

If anyone let's this soldier down because of a 30 second NBC news tape, ignoring the previous 2 day battle he..and his comrades went thru to secure those buildings, will only start an epidemic that will have negative effects to all the soldiers that are under orders to fight in this war!
Did those people at NBC expect the soldier to walk over to the terrorist an offer him a Cuban cigar...
This soldier did his job to the best of his ability and he and his comrades are still alive because of his instantaneous decision!
If anyone thinks those soldiers jobs are easy....walk in their boots for 16 months!

That's all.

I've heard this several times, but I haven't understood it. Are you implying that the enemy soldier was pulling out something that might have been a grenade or a gun and the shooter couldn't wait to see what it was before defending himself? I didn't see any haste in either of the videos. There was an Iraqi soldier lying still, quietly bleeding; there was an American soldier observing, making no move to dodge or take cover or warn comrades; then the American soldier deliberately shoulders his weapon, aims, and fires a shot.

What's the time constraint to which you refer? (I don't hope to agree with you, merely to understand you.)

Hey, Michael Moore clone, there's plenty of room available in Canada.



Militia Men? Are you focking joking? Lemme guess, you think Arafat was the father of modern day "militia", right?



Well, at least we know why you're so well informed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />



Have you seen the pictures and videos coming out of Iraq of beheadings of civilians by your "militia"?

Have you seen the pictures and videos that have come out of Iraq of the, as you say, "maimed and blown-apart women, children, and babies, victims of" IRAQI POISON GAS?

Have you seen the pictures and videos out of Iraq of Iraqi children, women, police officers, and other innocent civilians blown up by suicide "militia men" as you'd call them?

I'm sorry, that's right, you don't watch any news. It shows.

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you carry your happy ass over to Iraq, and help those long suffering "freedom fighters" by helping them blow up some of those United Sates soldiers you obviously hate so much.

The depths of stupidity, arrogance, ignorance, and hate that surrounds every word in your postings is amazing to behold.

All this brought to you by the man who chose to ignore law and common sense, and intended to lure criminals to his home to shoot them.......... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Or, were they perhaps just misunderstood militia men, I forget..........

Barak,



With your mind set, it is never going to happen.

You are like my dad who is 85 and lost his driver's license. Everyone doesn't understand.

Careful: just because I'm not a conservative doesn't mean I'm a liberal.


No, I'm not joking. Arafat was a murdering scumbag. Again: just because I'm not conservative doesn't mean I'm liberal.


Watching mass media to be well-informed is like consulting the Brady Campaign to learn about gun safety.


I've probably seen more of them than you have--especially if you've been watching TV news. But you're being caught up in the we're-good-they're-evil mindset too. First of all, you're making the argument, "He started it!" I can't speak to your childhood, but my parents taught me that that argument didn't wash when I was very, very young. Secondly, you're laying the blame for the beheadings on the two wounded Iraqis who were shot, when the overwhelming likelihood is that they had absolutely nothing to do with any of them.


You haven't researched those allegations, have you? You're just repeating something you heard somebody say, right? What was it you said about being well-informed again? The short version is that nobody knows for sure whether the chemical weapons used against the Kurds in 1988 in Halabja were American weapons used by Iraqis or Iranian weapons used by Iranians. However, everybody (well, except people who watch TV news, I mean) knows that they were not Iraqi weapons.

And is this another "he started it" argument? Saddam (or the Iranians, we're not sure) did it, so therefore it's okay for us to do it?


And you apparently don't bother to read the posts you reply to. That shows too. Go back and take a look at the definition of "terrorists" that I posted.


Apparently, the only anti-war people you've met have been liberals. You know what? Scratch that. I'll bet you haven't even met any anti-war people, at least not to talk to: I'll bet you've only heard about anti-war people, and probably only from other pro-war people--Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, maybe?

The world is a big place, son. You should get out from in front of that TV and look around a little. That tube will rot your brain.

Barak,
Do all anarchists argue with fence posts?
No offence to anyone here,but damn dude,you ain't gotta be right on every point. I'll bet you are a picky eater too!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, "son", I've been around this world and have been to more countries than I care to mention, over the course of 10 years serving this country. I wasn't a visitor on vacation. I've lived 7 years of my life overseas in several different countries. No need to lecture me about getting out and seeing anything there bub. But, anytime you want to compare passport stamps and life experiences, I'm game.

Many of my opinions are formed as a result of that real world education. I've had an amazing opportunity at an education and awareness of the world that so many of my countrymen are so unfortunate to not have the ability to of obtained, and instead who get their view of the world through New York Post and NBC.

And that's unfortunate that all americans can't have that exposure. I know through expericence we have about the best thing going in the modern world. I'm not guessing, like others. It's not perfect, but there's nothing better. Piss on it or those who protect it, and I'll do my damndest to return the favor, and then some.

Again, if it's so terrible here, leave. You'll be back, with a little different opinion of our country, and with your tail between your legs. If we'll have you.



Hmmm, didn't think I implied you were liberal with that Michael Moore statement, just meant to imply you were and ignorant, slovenly, POS who would be best served by getting your anti-american ass out of my country that you hate so much. Sorry for the confusion. Hope that clears things up for you there, Mikey.

I don't know any anarchists who argue with fence posts.

I sense that your question was rhetorical, but I don't grasp your point.

Actually,I did expect an answer,however,I am disapointed that my point wasn't grasp'd. Are you a picky eater?

Absolutely not. Not even close. Fear Factor won't accept me because they're looking for a suspenseful game.

Somehow, I'm not suprised... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Barak;
So you sit there on your fat asz you blouted pig, and run your mouth about our military men possibly doing something you don't approve of, when it's their life / safety on the line, and it protects your right to spout off.........

Why are you still here, there is NO LAW keeping you from leaving this country. I think you are a coward, a whining, ungratefull, obese, ignorant, pussy, coward... I can imagine what you'd do if sent to Iraq.............

IF there is so much merit to your off-beat views, why are you just a fat freak on the sidelines...........

Seriously , WHY do you eat so [bleep] much? Is it too much effort for you to get even a little exercise? Do you know you are going to die from being so [bleep] obese...why don't you get your own life in order before you whine about the way our military people protect you...
The above is PURE FACT, my opinion starts here...
You'll notice that Bush won the last election were only about half of the potential voters showed up, I THINK if there was a way to get the rest of the peole to vote, that most of them would choose Bush anyway..........See all you weirdo wannabees will vote to try to change the world, but plenty of regular ol' rednecks out there think they are safely in the vast majority, and that things aren;t going to get too weird no matter what, so why get involved...see they aren't after any big changes.....................there's no way to prove it, but I'll speculate that 100% of the [bleep] voted...thinking it was their big chance, and you know what ....it was. Out of the circle of people I see the most often, less than 10% voted, and none of the ones who didn't vote are [bleep], nor traitors like you.

Accraholic,
Hey man, chill! Give it a break! Have you forgotten that the very reason our troops are in Iraq is to let freedom ring. That means all freedoms, even and especially the right of Barak to state his opinion. I will freely admit I have not read all of what you wrote since once you said:
I kind of tuned you out. That, my friend is simply not acceptable, here or anywhere else, particularly after you said of Barak:
.

I don't agree with Barak's opinion either but I will not brand him a traitor or any other ill-advised epitaph, because he does not share my opinion of this incident, this war or this President. His choice of words have invited much of the derision he has received and I would guess that is by design, but let's not advocate his death. I have to give him this, it took a bit of courage to enter this fray with his specific take on the events and participants. He might have considered discretion being the better part of valor, but from what I have seen that is not Barak's way. I can accept that.

Not many forums have a Barak. I consider us fortunate. Ignore his assaults on mainstream sensibilities and embrace his unique gift .....ha ha!

Niiice...a hissy fit.

I've known the cyber-Barak for years - if you're trying to pizz him off you better change tactics. Right now it's an even bet whether he's laughing at you or feeling sorry for you.

Can we say Vietnam? That is the very same tactics used by the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong! It worked then and I fear it will work in Iraq. The toughest fight is the one being fought against an enemy such as our folks face over there, they are the finest and best military force ever fielded, but they are trained to fight against other troops. Just as we were in S.E. Asie low these many years ago. I have been a card carring Republican all my adult life but I perceive G.W. Bush as a Republican LBJ.

Let the flames begin if you must. Just remember how RSVN tore this country apart, I'd hate to see a re-run!

Accraholic,

Someone has to say it, so I will. You are a moron! You are apparently incapable of having a rational discussion without deginerating to lows that I have never before seen on this board. I have engaged in pretty heated discussions with people on this board and I am at least as radical and as persistent as Barak, but never have I seen anyone react with such vile and offensive rhetoric.

Listen, all Barak said in his first post was that in war, all wars, but particularly these kinds of wars, atrocities are committed by all sides. If it was necessary to go to Iraq, then we must be prepared for reports of these sorts of things and that we must take steps to minimize them. The rampant rhetoric of we're good and they're evil will only result in American boys doing things they shouldn't. In the end it is counterproductive because: 1. The insurgents will fight to the death in every instance because they know they are likely to be shot; 2. They will kill every U.S. prisoner they get; and 3. It is wrong morally and it will ensure that we never "win their hearts and minds" and it will recruit more insurgents.

Another point Barak was trying to make that went right over your head and was lost in your rant was that in order to understand the enemy you must be able to see him as he sees himself. To these guys they are freedom fighters and they view themselves as fighting oppresive invaders. Accraholic, I bet one of your favorite movies was Red Dawn. That is the way these guys see themselves. Therefore, if we do things like the Russians did in that movie, we will only reinforce that image and make them harder to defeat. In this kind of war, perception is everything and we must take every effort to avoid that sort of thing.

As to the reporter, he was with the earlier squad who had already cleaned out this building. In the unedited tape he can clearly be heard to tell the marines that these guys were wounded from the day before. He also took the tape to the Battalion Commander before he released it. Based on the tape the Battalion Commander initiated an investigation and the reporter was authorized to release the tape from on up in the chain-of-command.

I do not condemn the soldier in question. He is in a terrible situation and his reaction was not what it would have been outside of that situation. Yet, it appears he made a mistake. Should he be punished? Probably, but I'll be satisfied with whatever his chain-of-command or a properly initiated courts-martial decides.

Now Accraholic, let me say in closing that you are the one who is unAmerican and should leave this country. You see, I was taught that America was a place where people could disagree and where there were all kinds of opionions. I was taught that this was the place where our founders uttered phrases similar to, " I may disagree with you words, by will defend to the death your right to say them." The sad thing is Accraholic, if you get your way, one day the very words you use and the very methods you espouse will be used against you. Right now GW is in power and things look good for our kind. But, do you think things will be so rosey in a Hillary Clinton presidency?

Oh and by the way Accraholic, I am neither fat nor out of shape. I'll bet that one thing you forgot to mention about your service is that you were merely a quartermaster geek and you were put out after 10 years in the service because you never made it past the rank of E-4. It is usually those types of guys who like to talk the biggest. There, that is my personal attack for the day.

T Lee,

The biggest problem I see is that a large portion of the country doesn't know what we are fighting for, which I presume was the same sentiment of the country during Vietnam.

If the president had come out and said why we are fighting this war, and that it is critical we win, then the country would be behind him. The problem is, with the "don't want to offend" PC approach, real reasons couldn't be discussed, and the UN circle jerk route had to be taken. It also continued with the kids glove on approach after major fighting ended. I believe now with the election behind him, the kid gloves will come off.

I also enjoy Barak's posts. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. And, I look forward to his speaking up, even when it will upset the herd.

My feelings are: You should not kill wounded soldiers. I saw it happen on video a few times, and it made me sick. And, if they get caught, we need to accept the fact that someone did something stupid, and punish them.

We cannot even think about compairing ourselves to what they do. They behead because of there views and how they conduct themselves. We hunt them and kill them because of their views. We cannot stoop to their level or even remotely close to their level because then we would have no right to be hunting and killing these "terrorists".

I also do not put a halo around any member of the armed forces. I'm sure anybody who has served can agree. The armed forces are made up of some really good people. Some of the best people I have met was when I was in the military. But, there also is an element of complete idoits that join the military. They are ego-maniacs, power tripping, and just plain stupid. It's not un-american to call em as I see them. Look what happened in those prisons in Iraq.

Honestly, why is everybody so eager to defend this guy? The video clip could be pulled out of context, or it could be that this guy has done it 50 times before without getting caught. We don't know, but we should demand justice, because that is what we are all about.

Honestly, I'll tell you why I want to defend the Marine Hero.
READ CONTEXT, PLEASE....

U.S.Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.

They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.

The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded insurgents would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again.

Four of the insurgents appeared to have been shot again in Saturday's fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the insurgents appeared to be breathing.

A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."

The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the insurgents head, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."

The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another Iraqi insurgent lying motionless. But one of the Marines step back as the insurgent stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The other Marine stands his ground, but neither of them fires.

When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday's firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know." .... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

"You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is saying, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded."

A Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.

NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the Iraqi insurgent had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.

About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.


These Marines are trained to not only protect themselves but to protect their buddies. He did his job and did it right.
It's so obvious, I just cant believe people even have a doubt about the whole issue.

Concerning Barak,
as far as I'm concerend the guy lays awake at night in fantasy land dreaming up ways of "how can I swim upstream tomorrow?"
He also has no credibiltiy after his nice little white lie about being chased home by some young thugs. See what I mean?
his thinker is working overtime to dream up a senerio to try and piss anybody off that will take the time to read his crap.
He feeds off it.

I don't think accraholic made any statements about 10 years service, but I did. So, in case that was directed toward me, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, I'll clear things up.

First, I don't care what field someone served in. Everybody serving over there is in extreme danger. The infantry soldiers are the warriors at the tip of the sword no doubt, but all service members in theater are risking a hell of a lot more than any of us here talking about them.

Personally, I did 10 years, and regret I didn't do 20, because I could have retired in 2 months had I stayed in! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I'm proud of the time I served, and I show it. I think I accomplished a lot for the Army and in doing so, our country. I was proud not only for serving, but for what I did when I served.

My primary MOS was 95b, Military Police. During that 10 years I served 2 in investigations, 2 in the 7th Infantry Division (Light), 7th MP Company, a "combat MP" assignment. Part of the U.S. Rapid deployment force (7th Div and 82nd Airborne) for that time. Trained extensively for two years in MOUT training in preparation for the Panama Invasion, which my unit was involved in 3 months after I left for Germany, and during which I lost a friend in that operation. I was on a plane headed for Panama during the first (cancelled) invasion during the coup attempt on Noriega.

Did 3 years CID (Criminal Investigation Division) DST (Drug Suppression Team) working coverty purchasing drugs, approaching 200 felony arrests during that time (almost all civilians, off base), shot at twice, returned fire once (missed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> but we still got him), victim of an armed robbery by a drug dealer once, and spent 6 months of that time working with the ATF violent Crimes Task force in the area, not to mention many local departments. Conducted many forced entry search warrants.

Personally, I have just as much respect for every quartermaster geek, cook, and truck driver over there who is doing his or her duty as well as they can, as I do the infantry guys. They're all in danger. Infantry more than others, but I'd suspect if you tallied up all the casualties over there since the beginning of the war, there are more non-infantry casualties than infantry. ADA and MP units are out on patrol in the streets the same as infantry. Truckdrivers are being ambushed.

I left the Army after 10 years at the rank of E-5. My wife was pregnant with our first, and I came down on orders for my second tour in Korea, a place I detest. I did not want to be overseas when my son was born, and miss the first 9 months of his life. As I only had 10 months left, and the tour was one year, I elected to not extend to meet the tour and got out to pursue a career in civilian law enforcement. A whole other story!

Unlike Senator Kerry, I was honorably discharged.

So, if I react a little stiffly to what I perceive as anti-americanism, hopefully you'll understand. I have a great feeling for our military, and those who are in harms way now. They are doing what they're told, regardless of how they feel about it, and are doing a fine job. For anyone to give less than the total respect and gratitude they deserve infuriates me.

While I cannot speak as a combat veteran (few who have served can) I can speak as someone who has faced and returned fire in my assignment, and who certainly dealt with extreme danger on an almost daily basis, and I know what it's like when the hairs on the back of your neck stand up, and what it's like to be second guessed for inordinate amounts of time after making a split second decision under intense stress.

I also speak as someone who has spent considerable time overseas, some of it in some pretty unpleasant places. I know what we have isn't perfect, but it's the best bet going.

Yes, every american has a right to voice an opinion. Me voicing mine about someone I feel is an anti-american piece of crap is exercising my rights. I don't believe my years of service give me any more "right" to voice an opinion than the next guy, but when that next guy is blowind wind out his butt about "The world is a big place, son. You should get out from in front of that TV and look around a little. That tube will rot your brain." needs to be brought in on why I have the perspective I do, and it's not because I'm getting fat and lazy laying on my couch watching CBS and waiting for Dan Blather's next lie tearing our country down.

Kind of long winded, but, that's the second time on this board I've seen someone question what someone did in the military, implying it was somehow less important and not has honorable as the guy with the M-16 going door to door, and less worthwhile. Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't get your point. How did he do his job "right" by shooting that man in the head? If they start using children to carry in bombs, will they be doing their job "right" if they start shooting all children in the head who they think look suspicious?

The facts in what you wrote say that they shot a wounded soldier who they "thought" was faking dead. If that were a justified reason for killing the wounded, there would be no accountability. Every war crime in the book could be committed and justified away because of the surrounding circumstances. Regardless of how terrible war is and how aweful your opponents are, it does not give you the right to break the law.

When Bush started his whole "axis of evil" deal, he made us out the be the righteous. Because, who can judge evil but the righteous? So, we must be above reproach as we wipe out this "evil" and these "terrorists" or we will be nothing more than hippocrates.

I just want justice, whether he is found guilty or innocent.

It is truly a shame what the war in Iraq is doing to this country and to Iraq. I would like to see the news media pulled out of the combat areas and removed to the rear.

Wow this got ugly quick <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
Does anyone know if the imbedds have to get their footage vetted by the military?
I still think this COULD have been released deliberately. A psywar op. Maybe it's because I just read "The Decievers" by T. Holt, the most comprehensive book I've read on the WW2 deception tactics and I'm feeling sneaky.

Bonzi, the marine did not know the man was wounded.

With many insurgents faking dead and then blowing up themselves along with marines. The marine took trained
and approprate action. What would you have done?


When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday's firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know." ....

I believe him! He didnt know. All he saw was somebody moving that potentially could have killed him and his buddies.


"So, we must be above reproach as we wipe out this "evil" and these "terrorists" or we will be nothing more than hippocrates".

Yes, and I appreciate your thought of taking the high road
of ethics.

How sad. Some of you have criticized what this Marine did based solely upon the sketchy information contained in a few seconds of video. I guess it�s the American way to believe what you want, to have a contrary opinion and to speak your mind, but it�s also the American way to support our President and his plan to conduct the war on terror, the troops that carry out that plan, and in this particular case, the conduct of this Marine; at least until the incident has been investigated.

Given what you and I have heard and read, if you think this incident rises to an atrocity, murder, or a war crime, you should be thankful that you can make those judgments from the comfort of your easy chair instead of being in a similar situation yourself. The two teams on the field of combat are often described as, �the quick and the dead.� I know which team you would be on.

Barak,

That Marine was doing his job! It is not a Marine's job to die for his country. He is there to make the other S.O.B. die for his. If you had combat experience, you would have the insight to know better than to turn your back on a wounded terrorist, or you wouldn't live long!

Whether the American people feel that this conflict is justified or not, for our combat troops in that situation it is very real and deadly. Kill or be killed is a daily reality for those guys.

The only mistake that Marine made was being on a patrol with a story hungry journalist. Be damn glad that we have young men with the character and courage necessary to do the dirty jobs that our government sends them to.

I certainly don't agree with or support every action that our leaders get us into. In fact, I believe that we should not continue to be the "Big Brother" to the rest of the world, however, our troops are trained to kill the enemy, protect the interests of our country, and defend their brothers in arms, which they do very well! They do not deserve to be condemned as murderers for carrying out their mission. Get over it!!!!!

You know, one thing a lot of people are forgetting who want to label this marine a "war criminal" is that no matter if you feel he was wrong or not, it was obvious by his comments it was not done with malice. In my mind he's no more liable for war crimes than an pilot dropping a bomb on the wrong building on accident.

War crimes is a serious charge, and leads one to believe this marine was both seriously negligent, and malicious in his actions. He was neither. While the judgement call he made may ultimately be found to have been wrong, it was just that, a judgement call. He did not know the terrorist was wounded. Only that he was laying down, not surrendering, and appeared dead. When he saw him breathing, he assumed the worst, and fired to end a percieved threat. And he should be treated like a criminal for that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I hope they pin a medal on the poor bastard. I cannot conceive of being in that same situation, returning to duty wounded to aid your comrades in arms, making that call, and then being suddenly labeled as "criminal". How heart breaking for him, and for us as a country.

Calling those insurgents freedom fighters is a pathetic joke. They are supporters of Bath and radical Islam, amongst the most hideous, immoral cowards to ever walk the earth-right up there with Nazis, the Rising Sun, etc. They have no problem whatsoever killing their own countrymen, women, childen, people trying to help their country as in female Care worker. They are just furious that the madman Sadaam isn't looking after their interests anymore.

My thoughts are in direct reply to noone.

MY stance is simplistic,in that War ain't a Social Event. To think that either side will not draw blood,is foolish.

Were it MY ass on the line,I'd be apt to shoot first...question later....(MUCH later). That due to my penchant for digging Life in general,my Family in specific.

I've a hunch that those in the Sand Box,would be MUCH reaffirmed to learn that those of us outta harms way,do in fact support their decision making to boot up for their(our) Country.

Who am I to say some slurking sumbitch don't need a bullet in his noggin'?

Color me an azzhole,but I think Accraholic makes valid points and I seriously doubt Marines on the line find such things "troubling". In fact...my guess is,they dig the notion.

Your mileage may vary....................

Some good points raised by all on both sides.

I signed the petition for the Marine and here's why.

#1.
He's over there in harms way for our benefit whether you believe in us being in Iraq or not, in my mind that alone deserves my support until I have factual information to deem otherwise.

#2. Lot's of verbiage being thrown around on this thread about who's more American, the guys supporting the Marine and his action/s or the guys that are saying "Hey wait a minute, this isn't right, we've got to take the high road!" Both are correct, but in my mind some are jumping the gun.

One of the fundamental rights of our nation is to be PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL FOUND GUILTY.

I would ask that we give this Marine that consideration until folks that are on scene and have the entire information necessary make that judgement. Until they do in my mind he's innocent, just a guy in a hard place having to make hard decisions in a hurry. I pray he made the right one, alot hangs in the balance for him and either way it can't be pleasant to be him today! You're buddies are dying around you, you're walking through a foreign land with a loaded weapon wondering if you are gonna make it through and how could it get any worse than this? Guess what it just did for one Marine, he made the news.

He has my wholehearted support, until someone gives me a good reason to give him less than that. Just my view, 1ak

Ok, no WMDs. So its a war to rid the world of a guy who tortures prisoners and executes people. I buy that. Now we are doing the same reprehesible acts. So what is the war really for? Maybe somebody at Hallaburton can tell me. The good that can come out of this is for Iraqis to see how American justice is applied, and to think back on the days of Sadam, and even think about the insurgents. What justice did they have for similar acts? Not much. When this war fails - as it must since there is no popular Iraqi support for the occupation - what's left of the rational people over there will long for the days when America put its butt on the line for whatever reason, because they will have lost their best and only opportunity for democracy. Al Jazeera and the Sadamists won't be trying anyone for crimes except those wanting freedom. I say leave them all to wallow in their own filth. Every time they make anything that resembles a weapon, or everytime they send a dollar to palestinian families of suicide bombers, we simply send a cruise missle to take out whatever offends us at the time, and maybe an oil refinery or two as well. Then, when there's a will among the people to put an end to the facists' reign, democracy will have a chance. Until then, its not worth the life of one more American son.

Furthermore, I don't see how anyone can support that accraholic guy spouting personal attacks and epitaphs about someone merely voicing an opinion. THAT, merits censorship. What kind of forum is this, anyway? I don't begrudge anyone an opinion, one way or another. But that kind of personal filth will serve only one purpose, it will create a forum where only pigs live.

Jonah;
I was pretty wound up when I said that stuff that offends you so deeply, but you don't see me erasing it...

You can't send our boys into combat, and then make them play nice...They will get killed.

There may or may not have been mistakes made in this instance, but it sure as hell ain't for a bunch of us to sit here in our nice comfortable homes and decide, and it infuriates me to no end to see this kind of crap. If you guys want to second guess the men on the line, then haul ass over there and walk around with them...and don't be flinching.

Remember this, the terrorists are just as likely to use something like a white flag or a wounded person as a weapon as anything else.

I read this post and have a LOT to say. But , IT boils down to this. whe in combat you do what ever it takes to live 1 more day. if prisoners are wounded or a threat . or using supplies that we must have to live 1 more day. they must and will be eliminated . toughh luck but if you don't want to play war stay home. (x soldier)

Toolman sorta said what I was just going to ad, but I'm saying it like I thought it anyway...

When we get to the point that we aren't willing to do what it takes to win a war, then we will be losing one. If you think it sucks to be in a war and have to be serious enough to win, wait to you get a taste of second place...

Everyone on this board may have done what that Marine did. Anyone who says that they definitely wouldn't have is a liar. WHICH, just goes to show how unwinnable a war like this is. Soldiers in constant fear for their lives, angry, and under constant pressure do things like that. Killing prisoners and indiscriminate use of lots of ordinance is exactly the wrong kind of thing to do if you want to WIN a guerrilla war. Scads of firepower will keep you alive, but it will alienate the very people you need on your side. Ask the French about Algeria, or the English about Palestine.

If our goal is to become another Rome and stay there for a thousand years, then by all means, level every city that shows the slightest resistance. Crucify hundreds or thousands who dare to cross us. Bomb indiscriminately and rule by the terror of the sword. By so doing, things will eventually quiet down and we can rule. BUT, the minute we leave, whether it is next year or one thousand years from now, all that we have accomplished will be overthrown in an orgy of anti-American backlash by the oppressed populace. And we will have lost our soul by resorting to such lows.

If, as we claim, our goal is to spread freedom, establish democracy, and bring Iraq into a peaceful and harmonic American sphere of influence, then we must take every effort to use the least amount of force possible (even if it causes more U.S. casualties in the short term). We must target the insurgents only, and make damn sure that there is almost no collateral damage. We must repair the infrastructure and make sure that Iraqis ACTUALLY have a better life now than they used to under Saddam. We must show that we do not think we are better than them and that we only operate in their interest, sometimes to the detrimate of our own. We must take heed that one picture of one dead or maimed baby sets our work back significantly and makes our task infinitely more difficult. But, as we have seen, this is almost impossible to do without an almost infinite number of troops to maintain order. And, a determined insurgency makes it very difficult for troops to follow these policies and stay alive.

Such are the concerns of the occupier. And they have been the same since ALEXANDER and before. Never has a nation and its leaders so casually marched off to war in a hostile land with no understanding of history. Everything that is happening now is entirely predictable, from large scale collateral damage to mounting atrocities on both sides. It has happened in every occupation in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD. This war cannot be won short of the total devestation of every city in Iraq. Yet, if we do that we have lost the war and our soul as a nation.

Welcome to the Campfire, Jonah. It appears your attitude regarding the outcome of the Iraq war lacks the same positive outlook as did the beginning attitude of your Biblical namesake. The original Jonah changed his perspective and maybe you will too. There is much more good going on in Iraq than you will read in most newspapers or see on most news channels. I truly believe we will win this "war" against the few thousand miscreants� intent on murder and mayhem.

We are not doing the same reprehensible acts as Saddam by any stretch of the imagination. There you are misinformed or supporting a hollow agenda. There is a new movie coming out that you might want to see before attributing the acts of any of our troops in the field or in the prisons to being akin to those of Saddam. Don't watch it on a full stomach. The Iraqi�s were well organinzed in documenting their atrocities and this movie will show many from their film archives. It will not show those committed against the children and that is a relief. I can't handle that without problems.

I also don't believe we ever targeted oil refineries even when Clinton was lobbing them to dissipate some Monica heat. I know Bush never did but that may well be an upstart of a new conspiracy theory making its way around the net. Those never end!

Few support accroholic's post attacking Barak and few support Baraks perspective. The related posts are not censorship but are statements of opinions. Censorship would be if Rick Bin were to remove his post from the board. That has not happened.

I don't feel we are as bad as Sadam's Iraq. That is precisely why you don't fudge on integrity. We have the UCMJ that is the law. Just as we have tax laws, laws against smoking in bars, etc. etc. Americans don't pick and choose which laws are good and which are bad. You obey them all, never sacrificing the rule of law for your own opinions. The same goes here. Its the law and the rule of law should be endorsed by all. Not because its the cool thing to do or post on a site of vets, of which I am one, but because it is precisely what seperates us from the enemies of democracy. As a public official, I can tell you that integrity should never be compromised, neither should the rule of law. Its what makes us Americans.

Your posts are strange to me.As soon as you threw Halliburton out,any credibility that you might have had,evaporated!!!Americans are not sheep or robots when it comes to laws or rules.Things tend to work themselves out in the long run,this ain't Europe.
And don't worry about Barak,he can take it.

Integrity is very important; screw the law.

Well, I guess that's a little oversimplified. I think civil law is a bit like physical law--that is, things like the law of gravitation and the law of magnetism.

You have to discover physical laws; you can't make them up. If you try to operate according to made-up physical laws, sooner or later you'll run into trouble.

Civil laws are the same way. You can't make them up; you have to discover them. Made-up laws are always unjust, one way or another. Professional legislators, paid with money extorted at gunpoint by the revenooers from the people their made-up laws will fine and imprison, are the height of hubris. Well, maybe not the height of it, but they're certainly right up there and just now I can't think of anybody worse.

So when I say screw the law, I mean screw made-up laws. Which laws do I mean? Well, to commit a bit of plagiarism, we can start with every law made after 1912 and go from there.

Oh, and--no offense--but screw public officials too. All of 'em.

No, I'm not drunk: I haven't touched a drop. The thing is, I just got back from shootin' wif m'woman, and I'm in too good a mood to care, that's all. I'm sure I'll regret it in the morning.

An old friend of mine during WWII helped liberate a Nazi PW camp. His unit never accepted a surrender after that. The media and the liberal press may bring this to pass again.

Why not roll a grenade thru a door and not risk the lives of yourself or another GI. In combat this makes more sense than trying to capture the bastards. The only reason I can think of is a shortage of grenades. Send more grenades.

Jonah,

I appreciate your perspective, but I largely cannot agree with it.

They could pass a law tomorrow banning private citizens from any type of firearm ownership (odds aren't high they will being the election went the way it did, but it is still possible)

At that point I am gonna have to PICK that law and CHOOSE to disobey it. Can't speak for anybody else here, but each of us has to decide where his line in the sand is and at what point he is willing to sacrifice his safety or that of his family to make that stand.

What say the boys around the campfire? If they pass that law tomorrow are you gonna follow it or pick and choose?

I have to lean towards Barak's side of this argument, my guess is there have been a few good laws passed since 1912, but danged few of 'em. I don't need a legislator to tell me that the pink rifle leaning against the tree with the jolly roger on it is not mine and to not take it or that I shouldn't use my neigbors lawn to pump my septic out!

Maybe some folks do, but I respectfully submit that CHILD was left behind and needs to be removed from the playground. 1ak

Supporting the law, but working to change unjust laws is the American way. I understand your frustration. Special interests and institutionalized political corruption make grass-roots change nearly impossible today. But allowing the process to play out is generally best. I wouldn't interfere with that marine's due process anymore than I'd drive drunk or cheat on my income taxes, even if getting caught was not possible. The press interferes, and we end up with guys like OJ running around while poor slobs lose everything over mere mistakes. But its the glue that holds our country together, and I, for one, don't like seeing my country dragged through the crap because one marine chose to disobey orders and the law (if it turns out that is what happened)! I appreciate the civil discussion though. And Barak, my friend, just try getting through a day without some public official helping you or your family. Your broad brush strokes may help you deal with your frustration, but they don't reflect reality. Saying public officials are necessarily loathesome is akind to saying "I don't need firemen, roads, police, clean water, military, schools, universities, sewage treatment, or even social security." Public officials make these, and many other necessary things possible. A little respect is not too much to ask.

Jonah,
Don't include social security on your list of good examples of bureaucrats. I'll give you all but that one. They, under Democratic watch with congressional help, have gutted social security. I will also tell you that the waste and inefficiency in public services is appalling. I've been a "public official" too for a brief stint and couldn't wait to get back into private business. Some are dedicated and hard working. Too many see a mandate to screw off and are a load on the system.

Jonah,

I never thought I would find myself in substantial agreement with Barak, but I am in this case. The vaunted Rule of Law is really the Rule of Lawyers, who are trained in and adhere to a set of values and epistomology peculiar to their profession. Your notion that we all have the obligation to obey all laws to the letter is a peculiarly American one. In many other countries the citizens view the law much more flexibly, and do not acknowledge a civic duty to rigidly obey the law like dutiful soldiers obeying orders. For example, most Americans have a fundamental belief in justice, but many naively believe that justice is a primary goal of the legal system. It is not. I am not a lawyer, but I worked closely with them for many years. Lawyers know full well that the law is not always about justice but is always about the law. One senior attorney told me that when he was a law student a professor told the class "There is no law, only lawyers". Has anyone seen the reports of the D.A. in L.A. who is squeezing child support out of men who have been proven not to be the father of the child, but pompously defends his actions because, technically, "It is the law"? This is a major reason why many citizens view lawyers with disdain. As to the case in point, I am a veteran but not of combat. But my son served as an Army officer in Iraq and did see combat, so this is still a very personal issue with me. If this kind of oversight and quibbling causes even one American casualty because someone hestitated for a split second, then it is wrong and to hell with the law or whatever. Doesn't anyone read military history? Our troops faced a ruthless enemy in the Japanese, and met their ruthlessness with ruthlessness of their own. I read that during the Italian campaign some Native American soldiers scalped dead Germans in order to terrorize and demoralize German troops. Screw all this high-mindedness, and screw the media and lefty politicians. This is war and war has never been pretty. Let our troops do their job and save the investigations for the big stuff, if any, like My Lai. BTW, about Abu Ghraib and the "panty torture", has anyone given any thought to the fact that inmates of American prisons are routinely beaten and raped and the authorities can't or won't control it? Where are all the bleeding hearts on this one? Oh, but these inmates are not only felons but Americans at that, so their well-being isn't as important as that of Islamic terrorists. OK, rant over for now.

Paul

I read your posts,it took me a couple of times,but I think I got it figgered out. You said "just try getting through a day without some public official helping you or your family". I say BULL$HIT!!! If you think that your pubilc service is more noble than it is a hinderance to the ENTIRE U.S. population,You are full of beans!!! One thing that that I believe is that the Marine that shot the terrorist should be made an example ; of how to make sure other Marines are safe by shooting ALL of the bastards in the head...Your delicate sensibilities don't apply to terrorists!!!

Do you believe that every person in the world that hates america is a terrorist? I'm making an honest attempt to see things through your eyes, but i am having difficulty. Please define "terrorist" for me.

Paul39,

A couple of years ago a friend was bragging about his son just graduating from law school. I said, "O no. Not another terrorist!" He of course wanted to know what I was talking about. I suggested to him that long before the terrorist were comming out of the Middle East, they were comming out of law school. Can anyone say Ralph Nader and Corvair? How about triggers with twelve pound triggers. A friend of mine purchsed a new rifle and installed a 4-16 Tasco. He could lift the bolt to cock it and then hold it up by the trigger and it would not fire. Why? The lawyers have the firearms companies running scared.

If there was a blight which only affected law professors, I would not donate a dime for medical research for thier cure.

Islamic fundamentalists that shoot at our Marines.
Islamic fundamentalists that blow themselves,along with many others(civilians & military) up.
Islamic fundamentalists that fly planes into buildings.
If you think that these terrorists are all Iraq citizens shooting at our guys for their countrys freedom,you are wrong!(in my opinion).
The Marine Corp does not [bleep] around,if you shoot at them,and they find you,and they think that you are a threat to them(real or not)they will kill you!!!

Ringman,

Awhile ago one of our local liberal city council members told me that her son was considering going to law school. She said that he really wasn't interested in practicing law, but wanted to influence "public policy", whatever that is. Now I admit to being a bit ignorant about some things, and don't really know what public policy means, although I note that there are graduate degrees being offered in the field these days. For me it is one of those terms that hits me about like finger nails on a chalk board. The picture in my mind is a grown up version of those busybodies in school who ran for the student council so they could make up silly rules to tell the rest of us what to do. I thought they were a$$holes at the time, and haven't changed my views much 50 years later. Just my not so humble opinion. Oh, and speaking of corporate lawyers, our local supermarket checks ID on EVERYBODY who buys alcohol, even if you're 90 years old and look it. They add insult to injury by posting signs at the checkout counters that say they have the policy "---because they care". As they say in Spanish "puro pedo", pure B.S.

Paul

By jove Sir, that is the best idea yet! Ones with a 3 second fuse.

Oderint dum metuant

Jonah, you are the author of this topic and the substance of this topic has moved in an entirely different direction from what you expressed in your first post. Like the drift of this topic, the focus of your recent posts have shifted from terrorists shooting wounded Marines to this Marine shooting a wounded terrorist.

The man killed by this Marine was not a prisoner, let alone a prisoner of war. He was a wounded terrorist found in a building. Terrorists have no standing and therefore no protection under the rules of the Geneva Convention or international law.

Perhaps you would have preferred that the Marine had killed a Jap.

I know it's not a fair PC world view but I place more value on the life of one of our servicemen than I do 10 Iraqi's it's probably wrong to some or most of you, but I guarantee you nothing you say is gonna change it.

There should be only two things happen when they see American soldiers advancing. #1 Run or surrender. #2 stay and die.

Why is all the blame for this placed on the Marine rather than this dead guys chicken livered comrades who have forced the Marines into this role by their tactics? It soundsl like liberal reasoning to me, it's just an extension of any kind of fight, if I knock you down and am prepared to beat you senseless and you say "no mas, I'm done" and I let you up and you then try to resume the altercation, when and if I get you down the second time you ain't coming up again! Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. HOORAH Marines, do every thing you can to stay alive and keep your buddies alive. You'll have my support when you do.

Jonah, I appreciate and respect your opinions even if I disagree with them. The public servant stuff riles some guys here, me too in fact, but it pales in comparison when we are talking about the lives of our young men and women!

I am in my President and our servicemens corner on this one the whole way through and I say FTWorld! 1ak

No video should have been released to the world period until we are out of there. I would not want my son fighting with his hands tied. That second's hesitation will get you killed.

If you're a public official, then--and I still don't mean to cause offense--I am not your friend. I wouldn't want you to get the wrong impression, you see. Some folks seem to think that all that stuff people say about politicians is meant playfully or jokingly.

Because you're new around here, and you don't sound like the sort to hang around on any of the other boards I frequent and therefore probably aren't acquainted with my history or just how aggravating a pain in the tuchas I am, I'll step out of character for a moment and give you a break--specifically, a polite suggestion.

Here goes: You probably don't want to engage me in a discussion of how necessary government services are, or how impossible life would be without them. Or of how much respect public officials are due. My informed guess is that it would turn out to be annoying and counterproductive for everyone involved.

Given the level of experience you have here, you might want to consult some of the other fellows regarding the credibility of that suggestion. I recommend you avoid asking the ones wearing the expectant grins and carrying the marshmallows and weenies on sticks.

But of course I neither have nor want any sort of authority over what you actually do, so...having gotten the polite suggestion out of the way, I will step back into character and await your next move.

Have a nice day.

Funny, how we elect officials but loath them all the same. We encourage government by peers but then hate ourselves in the process. We wave the flag and sing tributes to unelected public servants on holidays, promote the elected ones on a patriotic basis, but blame them for all the problems and the demise of our culture, when it is quite possible that our bureaucracies have actually enabled the progress of the last 100 years. Take a drink of tap water in Mexico every time you doubt this fact. If you live, you'll will soon cease to doubt the contribution professional public servants have made in our progression from a land of illiterate farmers who died at age 45 to one of shopping malls and spoiled children who can expect to live will into their 80s. Not to mention the next time you need one of those villianous members of the law enforcement community, who earn their bread protecting you and yours from those who would really profit from a land where laws are simply suggestions, following only the ones that they agree with or see profit in following, disregarding the rest. The sooner we hold everyone accountable for their actions, particularly those acting in official capacity, the better off we will all be. The standard has to be the law, or else, logically, we cannot claim to be more virtuous than those who have no law and act accordingly.

I am in the armed forces corner, the prez, that is still iffy with me. I still do not think our fine folks in uniform should have been fed this [bleep] sandwich! And don't give me the terrorism argument, they are just waiting for the next oportunity and Iraq will not influence their actions. I been in one like this about 40 years ago 1965-1966, I had hoped we learned a great lesson from that one. But, alas, just like the war to end all wars, that is fantasyland.



Yeah, I agree with that one. I spent 30 years as a "public servant", Peace Officer to put a point on it. Todays folks are over the top in power and accountability, sorry but that is how I see it and I do have close insight as my daughter is a sergant with my old department. She is constantly reigning in some of the more aggressive deputies that work for her and explaining "civil rights" to them. The department as a whole is going more para-military rather than my day of keeping the peace, this whole thing is due to bureaucracies running things rather than the people and force of the law.

I can run my life without "big brother" thank you very much, I will decide if I need to wear a seatbelt, mow my lawn and generally conduct myself as I know there are penalties for dangerous, obnoxious or foolish behavior far beyond any legislation. Let the Fed take care of forign relations, trade and such. Let the states take care of state business and let the people take care of themselves. Most "public servants" live self aggrandizing lives and are in it for the power, they for the most part DO NOT have yours or my best interest at heart.

Why do we elect and then fuss about those we elect? Because it is our right as citizens to watch and try to guide those we elect. If you don't vote, you have no room to bitch as you are part of the problem, not the solution. BTW, you do not have to vote for one of the two major parties, there are options out there that someday my wake up ALL the players.

Speak for yourself. I don't elect anybody, I don't encourage government by anybody, and (probably as a result) I certainly don't hate myself.

However, if I was that conflicted, I would probably chalk it up to my conscience trying to tell me there was something fundamentally wrong.


Again, speak for yourself. I wave no flags and sing no tributes. I love the American people, but find very little to be patriotic about. Pretty much I stick to blaming government for many of the problems we face.

There are a number of us out here with whom you may never be able to use the "preacher's 'we'" simply because our outlook is so different from yours, and is likely to stay that way at least as long as you're paid with politically-determined amounts of extortion money rather than according to somebody else's voluntary opinion of the value of the work you do. We see it as condescending and insulting when you tell us what we should think. Stay out of trouble: stick to telling us what you think.


No, that one's not possible.

You're saying that a heavily taxed economy will be better than an untaxed one? That companies being hauled into court by the government over all sorts of stupid regulatory issues will grow faster than free companies? That corporations made fat and sluggish by being given corporate welfare and government influence will move quicker and be of more benefit to the people than companies who must innovate against the competition and keep their customers happy to survive? That the government protection racket of various forms of licensing is actually conducive to hordes of small, fast-moving entrepreneurs starting businesses and exerting upward pressure on the big boys?

That's complete bull-hockey, and I'm afraid everyone knows it. You lose credibility when you say obviously silly things like that. Your line, if my experience with the standard government line is of any benefit, should not be that government makes us richer or more prosperous or freer--everybody can see through that--but that government keeps us safe. Safe from a polluted environment, safe from corporate greed, safe from contaminated or dangerous products, safe from terrorism or drinking too much or not wearing seat belts or thinking the wrong thoughts. That, of course, is also complete bull-hockey, but at least it sounds better, especially to folks who have forgotten what Ben Franklin said about giving up essential liberty for temporary safety.


Wrong again. The water in Mexico is famously unhealthy because of the government, not in spite of it.

Illiterate farmers? So you're saying that once the government took over our ailing educational system, our level of education went straight to the top? That the reason the average adult in America today is literate at what would have been a third-grade level in 1800 is that...ah...okay, I give up: what?

Spoiled children--spoiled because government has terrified their parents into eliminating all but state-approved discipline, apparently under the principle that the state loves their children more than they do and is a better judge of what's best for them--are a good thing? One of the many benefits of government?

And medical technology has advanced despite the best efforts of government to thwart it, with politically-motivated research grants and astronomical lawsuits and the regulatory jackboot of the FDA.

You are so full of it I suspect you have no idea how heavily indoctrinated you are. Stick around, though: we'll hook you up.


Hoo boy. Hooooo boy. I tried to tell you. Didn't I try to tell him? Didn't I? Sorry, guys: he didn't listen to me.

I have never, ever once had a positive experience with any law enforcement agent operating in a professional capacity. I have had law enforcement agents stop me, point guns in my face, beat me, insult and ridicule me, try to trick me into agreeing to unreasonable searches (no, before you ask, I have never been arrested or charged with any crime); but not one has ever helped me in any way at all. For example, the only time I've ever had any success at all in recovering stolen property is when I took it upon myself to go recover it on my own.

Nevertheless, I have in the past been friends with a small number of law enforcement agents--not because they were cops, but for other reasons. I had one of them brag to me of his own corruption and the fear it brought to the eyes of those on his beat who knew him; I had one of them explain to me how as a police firearms instructor he had taken handguns from two guys who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and shot their qualifications for them so that the class of cadets being held up could move on--out onto the street, apparently; and I had one of them try to jam his Glock into his belt holster with his finger still in the trigger guard and blast a bloody furrow in his right leg (and scare the ever-lovin' bejeebers out of me) while we were shooting together at an indoor range. And of course like everybody else I've had dozens of cops charge past me in the left lane doing fifteen or twenty over the speed limit, with their lights dark, apparently simply because they had somewhere to go and they felt entitled. Cops don't seem to realize just how infuriating that is to the rest of us.

So please don't even bother trying the old boys-in-blue lines on me. Pull the other one instead.


Hey. I feel qualified to address your fantasy of beneficent government because I have lived under it for decades. You have obviously not even read anything about my fantasy of a free society. As such, you're going to keep making a fool of yourself until you've done a little research. (You could try here if you're motivated.)


There you go with your self-righteous preacher's "we" again. But I am not the one to whom you want to be suggesting holding public officials accountable. To you, that probably means simply voting them out of office when their terms are over. That is not what it means to me.

I understand that it can be very profitable for the government if the people are led to confuse law and morality, obedience and virtue. That's one of the most important jobs of the public school system. But at least some of us here--even if we did go to public school--have managed to tease them apart again and understand that law and morality are mortal enemies of one another: the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.

OK, Barak - I stand corrected. You only got rammed only once.

The rest we simply disagree on, or perhaps I have acquired false impressions from your posts. I haven't yet seen any factual reasons to change them tho, no matter how nitpicky, glib and erudite you wax. I will stipulate that in these categories you far outclass me. Doesn't mean you are right tho. But I'll still buy you a beer should we ever meet.

I do agree that we have far more beaurocracy and "law" than we need. But I strongly disagree with your apparent anarchy - ie -the impression I get that you think we don't need any at all, people to administer them, or people to enforce them. You would rather what? - have a person with a perceived wrong arbitrarily off the offender at his discretion? Primitive tribes (and even some not so primitive) get some pretty good blood feuds going this way. Some of them going on for a thousand or more years.

Any time even two people get together, some agreement must be made to how they will interact with each other, even if it is tacit, unformalized even by discussion.

Why 1912? Why not Hammurabi, who is credited with first writing down some rules of interaction - called "law"? What a louse!

Here's one that ought to bring a smile to your face. Or rage to your heart. Well, at least indigestion.

Just recently, I heard (don't know for a fact) that the fed and, I think state, beaurocracies here in Alaska have declared that one cannot attempt to pan gold anywhere on public lands with out first filing a "statement of intent". Oh, my. Over 2/3 of Alaska is "public land", either state or federal. Totally unenforcable, except on Pop out showing his 6 year old how it's done on a roadside stream maybe. Don't make 'em if they are unenforcable or unacceptable!

I think I might have to buy me a gold pan, just so I can break that one!!

But back to the "shooting prisoners" subject.

I repeat- IMHO the Iraqi in question was not a "prisoner", under positive control or restraint or observation. He was at best, an incapacitated enemy combatant, said condition unkown to the soldier who killed him. I'll waste no crocodile tears on him. He took weapons in hand and reaped one of the possible consequences of the situational risk. T. S. Same as you do when you take your wife shooting at the range - and we all probably have "range stories".

From another post above, I understand the reporter did exactly as I suggested, and was then cleared to release the video. I stand corrected on that, too.

Finally - and I haven't yet seen this point made elsewhere (tho it seems so obvious it may well have been), if my understanding of the situation is correct, the GIs burst into a darkened room from a bright daylit street outside. It takes seconds, at best, for one's eyes to adjust, and a hint of movement may be all the warning one gets of an enemy rolling a grenade or pointing a pistol, or triggering a bomb during that period of extreme vulnerability.

I signed the petition also, and will waste no regrets on another dead terrorist(and none of this "freedom-fighter BS), nor post again on this subject.

Please note, however, that I am not suggesting an exhaustive investigation not be made, nor that SECURED prisoners be shot, nor mistreated beyond the needs of the moment for the safety and security of our troops. In doubtful situations, beter safe than sorry, and better them than us. An investegation needs doing for US, and what WE stand for, in generalalities, and won't do a thing for us on the Arab "street". Again. T.S.

Our troops are finding evidence of mass murder, mutilations, and torture of the citizenry there. Yet this is hardly mentioned by the world press or not at all. They prefer to crucify a battle weary soldier trying in his mind to protect himself and his fellow soldiers.
I was on the fence about Iraq but watching the war there and the world's reaction to it makes me think that G W may have done the right thing. Sickos.

Well, I don't normally drink beer, although I can stand Guinness stout if there's no other choice; but if you supply the Diet Coke, I'll supply the cigars--maybe a Partagas Black Label or La Gloria Cubana Serie R Maduro if you're a cigar smoker, or a Macanudo or Fonseca if you're not.


Most people don't make the jump from statism to anarchism in one leap. First, you'll probably have to take the step to minarchism--the most dilute form of libertarianism. To get there, all you have to say is that you're sick enough of government poking its nose into your business that in order to get it out of your business you're willing to give up on using it to poke into other people's business--even if you don't agree with what they're doing--as well. If all you're interested in is wresting control of government away from your opponents so that instead of being beaten with it you can beat them with it for awhile, then I have nothing to say to you.

But once you're a minarchist, you'll begin to notice that more and more of the functions of the limited government you have in mind can be gainfully turned over to the free market. With me, the thing that kept me minarchist was national defense: I couldn't see a free market way around the Free Rider Problem. Eventually somebody showed me one, though, and I discovered thereafter that I was making anarchist arguments rather than minarchist ones.


In a free society there would be a kind of law, certainly, although it wouldn't work exactly the way it works now. The free market would provide precisely the amount of law, administration, and enforcement that was necessary, and the competition to eliminate corruption. If you're interested in more, follow the link I provided above.


Absolutely. Have another cigar. This time, try a Don Tomas Corojo in tissue paper. Gorgeous wrapper, isn't it? Unusual Corojo flavor, but smooth and very nice. Wanna borrow my cutter, or do you have one of your own?


I'll start another thread about that.


I've already made my stance on that issue clear, so I'll stop wasting bandwidth. See you on the other thread.

The alternative to bureaucracy is anarchy. The cream will never rise to the top as you fantasize, because it will be raped, vandalized and spend a good portion of its unregulated profits defending itself against the hordes of lawless buttersuckers who hate cream simply because they can, and because there's no one to stop them. The land of no laws you envision does not exist for good reason. Democracy is a good thing, but if you persist in clinging to your idelogic nirvana in the face of the absolute hopelessness of your cause, as well as its fundamentally flawed view of society and the structures that have been created to keep us from tearing one another to pieces in the pursuit of a million different twisted dreams, then have at it. You have the right to your dellusion, as long as you don't break any of those pesky laws and infringe on anybody else's twisted dream. Say, you don't live in a shack in Montana and crap in a coffee can do you?

The video proves that the marine was justified in shooting the terrorist.

However I would not want journalist to accompany me while I was fighting a war.

Conrad

In other words, you basically have no idea what you're talking about, never having read a word about anarchism that wasn't written by a government, right? You don't want to engage me point for point, so you substitute broad swaths of ignorance instead.

It's no skin off my nose; I doubt you could argue productively with me even if you were disposed to. Your premises are too different--plus, you're a public official, which may very well mean that you're accustomed to people treading lightly around you, since you can defend your position with the simple force of government, rather than having to rely on reasoned logic as the unwashed masses do.


Speaking of twisted dreams, do you realize how little respect many people have for the majority of your vaunted laws, and how many of them are blithely broken every day without a backward glance? By everyday people in the everyday pursuit of their everyday lives, I mean.


Ignorance again. You're confusing two opposing types of anarchist. Do you also confuse Indians and Pakistanis? Chinese and Japanese? Semiauto and full-auto? Look--if you refuse to educate yourself, that's your call. But in that case it really is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Oh, I'm sorry. But I didn't see where you specified which brand of anarchy you were in favor of. So which sect are you proposing we dump our lifestyle and institutions for, the Mere Chaos sect, or the Rape, Pillage and Murder sect?

The one flaw I see with your "follow only the laws you agree with" philosophy, is that when you have as many people living as close to each other as we have had for some time, and will have henceforth in this nation, there will be a large population of sociopaths. There will also be the need for social infrastructure. Anarchy cannot provide the infrastructure to support society, nor can it handle the 20-30% who will not abide by even the most fundamental rule of law, and deprive the majority of their basic rights - those being life, liberty and the pursuit of deer in Wisconsin.

Been nice discussing this with you. I think we've exhausted the informative phase of the discussion, and I'd hate to see it degenerate into a less-than civil exchange. So peace be with you, and I'll save my coffee cans for the cause.

Then you didn't look very hard. But be honest: you had no idea there were different brands, did you?


I'm curious: where did you get that? That's still ignorant, but it seems less ignorant than the rest of what you say; did you actually see something like that somewhere, or are you just lucky?

And don't tease me: you see more than "the one flaw," don't you? Even though, having conspicuously avoided the link I provided earlier, you still have no idea what you're talking about? You probably say that to all the girls.
If I were to eliminate your concerns about sociopathy, I'll bet you'd find something else to complain about, wouldn't you?


What--and government can? People provide the infrastructure to support society; anarchism would free them to do so efficiently, appropriately, and profitably, rather than politically and prejudicially.


20-30%?!? Twenty to thirty freakin' percent? You're telling me that more than one in every four or five people you know is a sociopath? That the chances are better than a roll of the dice that you're one yourself? That's fascinating. I had no idea; but I suppose I can see how the unaccountable coercive power of government might attract sociopaths. Out here among us non-public non-officials, the percentage is much, much, much lower. I've lived for long enough to know better, and I've spent quite a bit of time in prison among rapists and murderers and child molesters, and I've only ever met one person in my life whom I thought might have been a sociopath. But then I don't spend much time in the halls of government.

Government protects, coddles, and rewards sociopathy, even among non-politicians. Anarchism would not. A sociopath in a free society would learn to hide very, very well indeed, or else he would most likely end up dead.


I did warn you.

I can see you've spent a lot of time thinking about this, but I don't think you know very many people, nor have you been anywhere where the rule of law does not rule. Show me an example of someplace where people are better off than here in the good ol USA. Then, show me a place where people are better off that has no government. Certainly it won't be a place with modern media, a monetary system. I imagine that shangrala will be an isolated, tribal community (which is really a very pure form of democracy) where fishing is the major economic activity, technology is rudimentary and survival based, and where stress basically dosen't exist on the level we have it. But that's only my conception. Show me the country. I need an example. Then, when you can't point out a modern place that serves all the needs of a diverse, large population without any bureaucracy, then explain how you envision efficiency without bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is CREATED for efficiency. Certainly it is not pleasant to stand in line or fill out forms, but EFFICIENCY demands such an approach because processing anything on a large scale requires regimented, routine, step-by-step tasks. Try running a motor vehicle bureau or police force without procedures. Procedures beget bureaucracy. The necessary evil of living in a modern, populous, diverse, economy that values quality of life for its citizens. In other words - democracy. And I happen to love my vote. Its what separates us from the Ukraine, for example. A nice little constitutional republic that feigns democracy. Now the people there are starting a little anarchy of their own. If the uprising succeeds, do you think they will let the mob run wild with no law and order? Nope, they'll reform their bureaucracy and try to instill MORE democracy into the structures that make life possible. But do tell me about the place you have in mind that we should model after. Its probably a good vacation spot, and I have a new fishing pole I'd like to try out. I'm praying the women there have grass skirts and go topless too. A little periodic diarehha from unclean water is a small price to pay for good seafood and bare breasted women on a regular basis.

Since 1998. Thank you.


First, you and I undoubtedly mean different things when we say "better off." I suspect you mean fat, slothful, subservient, and apathetic. I mean free. As far as I'm concerned, a person is better off if he's free and dirt-poor than he is if he's got all the beer, cable TV, and sex he could possibly want but has to ask the government for permission to drive a car or get married.

So from that perspective, people in Communist Poland, with their underground anarchist justice system, were better off than we are in that respect, because they had more justice and less politics. People in prison, with their unregulated, unlicensed, largely untaxed anarchist black markets, are better off than we are in that respect, because an individual inmate can start whatever business he's best at without any oppression or "oversight" from the government (other than regular bribes to the COs--that part's pretty much like the outside) and succeed or fail on his own; but of course most folks carefully study the failures, learn from them, and get rich quick. People in the Old American West (which, as you may know, was nowhere near as violent as it is portrayed as being in books and movies), especially in the country, were about as free as anyone ever has been.

As for other places, I've recently been half-seriously considering expatriating to Mexico, where I've heard that the government's corrupt enough that you can bribe it into leaving you pretty much alone.


If by modern media you mean television, then I hope you're right. The Lobotomy Box may be the largest sink of American freedom since the income tax.

Monetary system? How are you going to prevent that? There are multiple competing monetary systems in prison, where they are forbidden by law, that are all much better than Federal Reserve Notes, in that they consist of items of real value that can't be inflated or taxed. Capitalism thrives in prison.

If you could take the justice from Communist Poland and the capitalist economy from prison and combine them with the freedom and the natural resources of the Old West, I think you'd really have something.


You leave me speechless. That doesn't often happen here; you're to be commended. How do you argue with a man who insists that bureaucracy is efficient, or a man who insists that 2+2=5, or a man who insists that Rosie O'Donnell weighs 110lb, or a man who insists on any other assertion that is plainly false on its face?

When I go to Home Depot to do some business, I wait in a line of perhaps two or three people for three to five minutes, maximum; any more than that, and somebody appears to open another of their twelve or fifteen registers. Why? Because they know that if the line is too long, I'll simply leave my cart in the aisle and go to Lowe's, or Meijer, or Wal-Mart, or Sears Hardware, or even choose to do without. When I go to the Department of Motor Vehicles to bribe the government to let me drive my car on the road for another year without arrest, I stand in a two-hour line of forty or more people, and there are not other "registers" that can be opened. Why? Because they know that A) there is no competition, and B) I'll prefer standing in line to the fines and jail time they'll inflict on me if I choose to do without.

How is government more efficient than business? Are you going to say that the DMV is more efficient because they have only one point of "sale" that's 100% utilized, whereas Home Depot has a number of points that aren't utilized at all except during periods of heavy traffic?


No, government begets bureaucracy. Do you think that running a Home Depot requires fewer procedures than running a police force or a motor vehicle bureau? Yet Home Depot manages much more efficiency, much better prices, and a much more pleasant customer experience into the bargain. (Imagine how much better than even that they could do without having to deal with bureaucracy themselves!) Why? Because government has no competition, whereas Home Depot has folks nipping at its heels that will take it down if they get half a chance.

I guess I thought of something to say after all.


Are you serious? You think we have more control over you in government in this country than they do in the Ukraine? Is this really an argument you want to engage me in?


It's Thanksgiving Day, and I have to go help my wife clean the house because our daughter and her fella are coming over later. But I gave you a fair start over in the other thread. If you have further questions, I'll try to get to them at some point during the weekend.