We lost another hero...
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3XFHSRTxp4

Our country is made poorer by the loss of this great man.

Medal of Honor Citation:

Source: http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/citations25.html#H

I just dont understand why human beings, honor other human beings, for killing large numbers of some other human beings.

Its sick, preverse, and distructive to the species.

What goes on in peoples minds that make them think it is ok to kill someone they label as an enemy ???

Sometimes I wish we could round up all of the people that think like this and put them on an island so they could all kill each other.

Then the rest of us could have some peace.

He didn't get the medal for killing people, he also was treating the wounded under heavy fire, you nincompoop.

Then please try not to comment on things you don't understand...this man was a great warrior ( a good thing) and a great man...give him his due. Your comments are somewhat naive. There will always be conflict and we should honor those who do notable actions during those times....

As a pacifist I sometimes feel the same way.

On the otherhand sometimes war is inevitable, sometimes even necessary. Some wars are popular some aren't. If your in an unpopulaer was nobody likes you.
If your in a popular war your protecting our freedom and everyone loves you.

Just the way it goes.

Sometimes there are very bad people who want to kill or enslave everybody else who is not like them.
Some wars are good; some are inevitable.

Of course you can "Imagine" that there is no war. Its really quite simple--just allow every petty tyrant to do whatever they want--presto--no war.

no war, then just genocide.....:(

FTC*

Say, is this the way to Amarillo mate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPaRQ1BYjzU&feature=related;)


* Feed the Crocs.

I'm assuming that your not just trying to stir up the natives, so I'll try to address your point. Whenever I read one of these stories (any nation, any war) I have two conflicting thoughts:

1. Almost all nations have a military and periodically engage in conflicts (some necessary, some not). Hopefully, the leadership of nations considers this a necessary evil, and only engages when absolutely necessary to protect the nation from actual enemies. Separating the politics from the individuals, those individuals serving in the military have committed to following the orders of their political leadership. We all know people who have engaged in actual combat and done things they would never do otherwise; the vast majority of these individuals will do what is necessary to meet their commitment, to protect themselves and their comrades, and to accomplish their mission. I know very few people who enjoyed that experience, and most people who actually see combat do not talk about it very much. Most of these folks meet their commitment and return to their normal lives, some with long standing consequences. These folks deserve respect and gratitude for choosing to serve their nation. I also hope that nations will eventually "outgrow" this behavior, but it is the current reality.

2. Sometimes you read of someone who is repeatedly in very challenging situations, and has volunteered to return to combat on numerous occasions. While there is no doubt as to their physical courage, I also wonder about the makeup of this personality type. I do understand why the political and military leadership of nations hold these people up as examples to their (sometimes reluctant) less experienced soldiers. However, I can't help wondering if some of these folks have other issues that cause this type of behavior; this seems completely different than the type of service discussed above. If you ask an "average" combat soldier about these types of individuals, you might find them "less enthusiastic" than the military leadership, especially if these individuals are leading others. There is often a fine line between heroic and reckless, and I do have to wonder about the makeup of an individual who was wounded over a dozen times in a conflict where most soldiers are never injured. Maybe this individual was fully committed to completing whatever mission his government asked of him without question (which raises other questions in this particular conflict); or maybe this individual would have been involved in these types of behaviors even if he wasn't involved in the military. In any event, I'm not sure this is someone I would want in charge of my son or daughter if they were in a dangerous situation. I don't want to be unfair to this individual, but it does make me wonder.

I don't think I would call any war "good," but some are certainly inevitable.

Who said, "All war represents a failure of diplomacy"?

Agree.


Not necessarily, imo.

What diplomacy would have prevented WW2 in Europe? There are many who argue that the "diplomacy" of allowing Hitler to take over land unopposed actually emboldened him. Had a little force been used early, it might have prevented the major force that was required later to stop Herr Hitler.

I am no fan of war. It truly is "hell". But tyranny is worse.

I'm not suggesting that diplomacy would have prevented WW2 in the 30s, but many people believe that WW2 was the inevitable result of the "diplomacy" that occurred at the end of WW1.

I was simply disagreeing with the term "good."

"In any event, I'm not sure this is someone I would want in charge of my son or daughter if they were in a dangerous situation. I don't want to be unfair to this individual, but it does make me wonder."


Quite the opposite; a man like this would be your child's best chance of getting home alive, if they were combat arms soldiers. Men like this are the experts of the game and value force protection (keeping your soldiers alive). Regretably, people die in combat. The best chance is to know what you are doing (your job) and to be assigned to leaders that are the same way.

I have not been in combat, and my kids certainly never will be, so this is all second hand. My dad was in the infantry in korea, and saw some significant combat. He rarely spoke of it, but he never seemed to be very impressed with "hero" types, especially when they were leading him. It seems to me that there is a difference between "knowing what you are doing" and collecting a pile of purple hearts. Just sayin'.

Well, this man was not the "hero type" as you so aptly describe him. He was a highly skilled soldier doing his job and above and beyond. If you read the citation for his medal of Honor, it was for saving a wounded soldier.

Regarding your children, I sincerely hope that they are never required to be in combat, but one should never say never.

I hope you are correct about him, I read the citation.

Regarding my children, they will not be in the military; that's not a question.

Not everyone listens to reason or wants to.
Would you share that opinion that way with

a. the guy who sticks a gun in your face when you're taking your 9 year old child to the movies and takes eveything you have
b. the guy who rapes one of your relatives at gunpoint, like your daughter or your sister?

Not all human beings are evil. But many are. Or they have never thought for themselves and are willing to kill others because they have been persuaded by people with just a little more brain power than they have. They are drones.

I will always defend myself, my family, my country and my way of life.

Judged by 12 is always better than carried by 6.

Pacifism would work great if everyone was a pacifist. However, that's never going to happen, so we need soldiers, and if we're going to have soldiers, it's best to have good ones.

To the OP, Thank you for the post.

Yes, Hattie. Thanks.
I could not open your link this morning for some reason, but finally view it and another clip from last year, when he was still living
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLKEZhkeMI&feature=related

90 minute interview with the Col. from 2006.
http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2006/07-27-robert-howard.jsp

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/ima...0/28003236.jpg


Book overview

In this provocative new book, Andrew Bacevich warns of a dangerous dual obsession that has taken hold of Americans, conservatives and liberals alike. It is a marriage of militarism and utopian ideology--of unprecedented military might wed to a blind faith in the universality of American values.
This perilous union, Bacevich argues, commits Americans to a futile enterprise, turning the US into a crusader state with a self-proclaimed mission of driving history to its final destination: the world-wide embrace of the American way of life. This mindset invites endless war and the ever-deepening militarization of US policy.
It promises not to perfect but to pervert American ideals and to accelerate the hollowing out of American democracy. As it alienates others, it will leave the United States increasingly isolated.
It will end in bankruptcy, moral as well as economic, and in abject failure.
The New American Militarism examines the origins and implications of this misguided enterprise. The author shows how American militarism emerged as a reaction to the Vietnam War.
Various groups in American society--soldiers, politicians on the make, intellectuals, strategists, Christian evangelicals, even purveyors of pop culture--came to see the revival of military power and the celebration of military values as the antidote to all the ills besetting the country as a consequence of Vietnam and the 1960s.
The upshot, acutely evident in the aftermath of 9/11, has been a revival of vast ambitions and certainty, this time married to a pronounced affinity for the sword. Bacevich urges us to restore a sense of realism and a sense of proportion to US policy.
He proposes, in short, to bring American purposes and American methods--especially with regard to the role of the military--back into harmony with the nation's founding ideals.

Nature, wiser than man, has a way of levelling societies that have become too intoxicated on hubris.

I've never seen it in my own span but it would be fun to watch.

:rolleyes:

I agree, but I doubt that it will be fun for most of us.

I haven't read this book but the issue seems a little simpler, and more selfish, to me. America is simply trying to use their military to make the world same for americans at the expense of the rest of the planet. Aside from the fact that the military isn't capable of accomplishing that mission (and is likely to make things worse), they are simply the wrong tool for the job.

It's not the military's fault, they are just a big, dumb club; intended to be swung at full force at an organized enemy. The civilian leadership of both parties continues to use them to treat symptoms whenever they are unable or unwilling to address the actual issues. It's not that they are using a sledge hammer to kill a gnat; it's worse, it's that they're trying to use a sledge hammer to tighten up a loose bolt.

As the only "superpower" left, america has become the big dumb kid from junior high school... with his dad's gun. They still have time to grow up, hopefully.

Makes me wish that isolationism would actually work in today's ( and tomorrow's) world.

There's something to be said for that, but I agree that it really will not work today... maybe it will still work if you're sweden; but it won't work for the U.S.

Your post is off topic, but thanks for posting it. Curiosity got me to google the author. Some of his thinking I agree with. Some I don't. Mostly a question of magnitude and approach to the "WOT" strategy.
This is a good interview. He makes some good points. There are always differences in how to fight a war and confront an enemy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/interviews/bacevich.html

Now back to the thread.

There are so many things wrong with this statement, and your reasons for making it. Yeah, freedom of speech... Go bill of rights... Hope you realize how that bill came to be. The blood, sweat, and tears of Americas Soldiers, and Soldiers of nations who believed in them.

The Military can do so much more then "swing, at full force, against an organized enemy" Adapting, Improvising, Overcoming... Placing the mission first, Never accepting defeat, Never quitting, and Never leaving a fallen soldier behind. Given a mission, the military will do their damn well best to complete that mission.

But, since I'm a member of the "big dumb club" all I'm smart enough for is to tell you to Eat **** and die.

Shouldn't have read this **** before my plane ride.

I hope your kids do join against your will, because they want to support the nation in that way. I believe that less then one percent serve in uniform. What's that say about the rest?

~Nate (wont have net for maybe a few weeks)

INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

"Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. "

Watch your back soldier & keep in touch when you can.
:thumbsup2:

golf clap....Godspeed...

Ditto

Let me know how you feel when you get back.

Being a hero is about the shortest-lived profession on earth. W. Rogers

better a dead lion than a live mouse.....

you really should STFU.........:mad:

INAPPROPRIATE
B.C.

I have a friend who just got back and decided to retire from the military, you should talk to him.

I have friends who have been several times and will go back again...been to the region myself...Gulf War, Somalia, Egypt, and more. I understand what's going on...

Then you should have understood my comment. I honestly don't care if you agree, but I think you know what I meant.