a real job...

Mr. Newman gets the prize.

i seem to remember the military being mentioned in the speech

Charming.

And as for your question, no I would not shoot an unarmed wounded soldier in cold blood. I probably would if I didn't know that he was unarmed and he made a sudden move or something. Maybe that's what happened in the actual case that everyone's been talking about, maybe not. Deliberately executing someone is totally different though. If that's what the soldier did I hope he's prosecuted for it, as I would expect to be if I did the same thing, but like I said I wouldn't.

Twizz,

Just wanted to let you know before you head to September:

In reference to your comment about "putting a guy out of his misery", you don't get to make that call. Ever. Let me reiterate this once more... You do not get to arbitrarily kill wounded personnel (especially friendlies) for the purposes of "ending their pain."

Read whatever LOAC reference material your unit has made available to y'all so far, or--if they haven't--contact another unit that has deployed before. Failing that, contact one of your unit's Staff Judge Advocate personnel with any questions you have as far as your legal obligations toward wounded enemy combatants, potential prisoners, etc.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2004 by Phoebus]

i understand this...i was just trying to be on the soldiers side...

Does this translate to: I am fighting for democracy, so shut up and don't question what I do or how I act?

That is not something that anyone in a democracy should do, but I will be fair and open minded to all of those invoved in the conflict.

Twizz, first you post inaccurate info (the date and other facts about the 'impromptu speech', Now you say ... i was just trying to be on the soldiers side...
Garbage in garbage out.
It's time for you to say "I posted bullshit and lied to defend his actions. I realize I am not helping his cause. Please realize he may be innocent ... despite my support"
And then hopefully Dubya can follow your example.

War crimes happen in war? Maybe, but that doesn't mean that civillians should shut up, eh?

Just in case you were wondering: I don't want people killing prisoners or unarmed non-combatants or taking hostages or holding people without trial or access to a lawyer.

You're fighting for democracy? Just what kind of fucked up democracy is it that ignores the rule of law?

you guys are nitpicking. all hes sayin is that if you dont have experience in the military you dont have any real life experience to argue against someone who is actually in that situation. He didnt say that no one should ever disagree with his opinion
it sounds like you all are pissed of G.W. (for whatever reason) so anytime there is someone who you think supports/represents him you jump down their throats.

[Edited on Nov 20, 2004 by DrStinkypants]

(1) I don't have experience of the pressure that leads people to become suicide bombers, but that does not stop me from questioning their actions. Its the same for soldiers, if I see something, I am going to form an opinion and I will want to talk about that. We don't need to have the same experience to form opinions, but we do need to bear in mind that we don't have the same experience.

I feel that I owe everyone in the conflict some consideration, which I will show by being fair and open minded and by not making quick emotional decisions.

(2) I agree with you that some people seem to use the soldiers as political pawns. I don't like that either and I think it's cheap trick. In general, I have more respect for soldiers than I do for politicians. Colin Powell is one of the people who has inspired me to that view.

Sorry Dr. Denton, but it really isn't nitpicking to object when somebody posts something that isn't true. You can spin it all you like, but the fact remains, this wasn't on the Senate floor it wasn't in your or his lifetimes and it was, at the time, a political sandbag. What Glenn was "rebutting" was never said. Read slowly if your having trouble: No one attacked the military. I don't have to join the military to grasp this, because I can fucking read.

i assume you meant, "if you're having trouble". by your standards your argument is completely invalid now.
yes the speech was cited incorrectly. but i dont really care when/why it was given. its still a good speech.

nit·pick ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntpk)
intr.v. nit·picked, nit·pick·ing, nit·picks
To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.

just so there's no confusion.

No Footypajamas, there is no confusion. You agree with the message as completely inapt as it is so you're continually glossing over the fact that no one is attacking the military. Not in 1974. Not now. The fact that no one is attacking the military is quite significant. You can rah rah your great and rousing lie, but giving a rousing speech with no basis in reality is called propaganda and people who think its cool are called sheep. The accusation against Glenn was that he had no management or budget experience, which he didn't, so he responded by saying "How dare you impugn the fine men and women of our armed services!" He was waving the flag to dodge valid criticism, which you might want to learn to recognize given that Bush is going to be in office for another four years.

My misuse of a homophone does not change that.

the speech was inappropriate, perhaps. but thats neither here nor there.
if i were judging a debate, i would probably say that Glenn lost, but im not. so whatever prompted his speech, i dont really care about.

the speech had a basis in reality, it just may not have been given at an approriatte time.
thats not what propaganda is.

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.
1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2)Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
3)Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy

You forgot Poland abortion!

My G.W. comment was a cheap shot at G.W. not willing to ever say 'I made a mistake'.
It is not nit-picking to point out factual errors and inconsistencies.
I think the soldiers actions could be defended many different ways, but bullshit and lies are not valid ways.
Maybe he did feel he and his fellow soldiers were threatened by the man he shot. Honestly, if who-ever shot him the previous day had aimed a little better, this would not be an issue. He would still be dead and not killing anyone. Or maybe he was an innocent civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The U.S. soldiers actions were very possibly wrong.