UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Let me first state that Pat Tillman is a true American hero. He rejoined and went to Afghanistan at the same time my brother was there. For all my misgivings about Iraq, Afghanistan was the right war, one that we and now the Pakistanis have largely abandoned. Individual soldiers deserve our praise but the machination of the military is what people dislike. Link. When she first learned that friendly fire had taken her son's life, "I was upset about it, but I thought, 'Well, accidents happen,' " Mary Tillman said in a telephone interview Sunday. "Then when I found out that it was because of huge negligence at places along the way — you have time to process that and you really get annoyed." As memorials and press releases shaped public perceptions in May, Army commanders privately pursued military justice investigations of several low-ranking Rangers who had fired on Tillman's position and officers who issued the ill-fated mission's orders, records show. Why is there a need to outright lie and cover up everything that might shed a bad light on leadership? Why does this smack of a PR move by the Army? I think most Americans can accept the truth and that 'friendly fire' happens. Why lie? Which included lying to a U.S. senator. Another question I've been walking around with for awhile, why was Pat Tillman let back into the military given his financial status? My other brother who is in Air Force SF and Ravens has said a few times over the years they do not let in millionaires b/c "they're too much of a security risk." Had Mr. Tillman not signed a huge contract at the time?
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 describe Tillman's death by fratricide after a chain of botched communications, a misguided order to divide his platoon over the objection of its leader and undisciplined firing by fellow Rangers. There's a word for that sort of thing. It's called "war". War is little more than a continuous series of collossal blunders that provide ample opportunities for medals while getting people killed. So what's the issue here? Sounds like a whole lot of people bitching that war sucks. Well...no sh--.
UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 There's a word for that sort of thing. It's called "war". War is little more than a continuous series of collossal blunders that provide ample opportunities for medals while getting people killed. So what's the issue here? Sounds like a whole lot of people bitching that war sucks. Well...no sh--. 148396[/snapback] If you read it, no one was really disputing or bemoaning that things sometime go wrong in war. The fact that he was killed by 'friendly fire' does not diminish his sacrifice. The issue was the baldfaced lying, weeks and months after, when they knew the truth. Same thing they did with Jessica Lynch. Why do they have to manufacture stories like this, for however long they last before the truth comes out? Do they not think the American people can accept the truth?
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 If you read it, no one was really disputing or bemoaning that things sometime go wrong in war. The fact that he was killed by 'friendly fire' does not diminish his sacrifice. The issue was the baldfaced lying, weeks and months after, when they knew the truth. Same thing they did with Jessica Lynch. Why do they have to manufacture stories like this, for however long they last before the truth comes out? Do they not think the American people can accept the truth? 148442[/snapback] Actually...yeah, they think that. Personally, I think they're right: if they announced to the world that Pat Tillman died because of !@#$-ups up and down the chain of command ultimately resulting in a disorganized firefight where he was killed by friendly fire, the American public would be irate, demanding some sort of congressional head-hunt for the "incompetent officers" that "let this happen" up and down the line from Tillman's CO straight to Rumsfeld. Two generations ago, Americans understood this sort of thing. The Eighth Air Force bombs the 30th Infantry Division at St. Lo (out of gross negligence, I might add), wipes out two entire companies' worth of troops and kill the commanding general, and the reaction is "It sucks...but that's war." Nowadays, one specialist dies in a minor skirmish in Central Asia, and everyone immediately looks for someone to blame. The Pentagon is absolutely correct in handling it as an internal matter...what are they supposed to do? Hand over the information to an American public that holds such an irresponsible attitude towards war that they're absolutely shocked when anyone gets so much as a scratch on the battlefield?
blzrul Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 They fear that if the people knew just how absolutely confusing and chaotic and (often) senseless war really IS, they'd never want to have another one.
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 They fear that if the people knew just how absolutely confusing and chaotic and (often) senseless war really IS, they'd never want to have another one. 148488[/snapback] Close enough. Actually, they fear the public wouldn't support THIS one. Ignoring the fact that a great many DON'T support operations in Iraq...if the public knew just how screwed up war was, they probably wouldn't even want to be in Afghanistan.
UConn James Posted December 6, 2004 Author Posted December 6, 2004 Actually...yeah, they think that. Personally, I think they're right: if they announced to the world that Bill Clinton got a BJ because of !@#$-ups up and down the chain of command ultimately resulting in the use of a cigar to... and where he was killed by friendly fire, the American public would be irate, demanding some sort of congressional head-hunt for the "incompetent officers" that "let this happen" up and down the line from Tillman's CO straight to Rumsfeld. Two generations ago, Americans understood this sort of thing. The Eighth Air Force bombs the 30th Infantry Division at St. Lo (out of gross negligence, I might add), wipes out two entire companies' worth of troops and kill the commanding general, and the reaction is "It sucks...but that's war." Nowadays, one specialist dies in a minor skirmish in Central Asia, and everyone immediately looks for someone to blame. The Pentagon is absolutely correct in handling it as an internal matter...what are they supposed to do? Hand over the information to an American public that holds such an irresponsible attitude towards war that they're absolutely shocked when anyone gets so much as a scratch on the battlefield? 148473[/snapback] Any time when a gov't gets in the habit of not telling the American public the truth, b/c the subsequent reaction might be undesirable for those who lead, our democracy is in grave, grave danger. Is there a second thought about revealing a case of Mad Cow b/c people might stop eating beef? Is it all right for Clinton to lie about Monica b/c he doesn't believe Americans have the proper understanding of sexual relationships? The hush-hush and fabrication of stories before the truth is ultimately found out is crap. This is a problem of their own making. Report the truth when you know it, even if it shows you in bad light. Freely admit what happened to any and all and live with the consequences of the truth. If a network news station does this, they're rightly raked over the coals and heads roll. If the gov't does it, it's all right?
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Any time when a gov't gets in the habit of not telling the American public the truth, b/c the subsequent reaction might be undesirable for those who lead, our democracy is in grave, grave danger. Is there a second thought about revealing a case of Mad Cow b/c people might stop eating beef? Is it all right for Clinton to lie about Monica b/c he doesn't believe Americans have the proper understanding of sexual relationships? The hush-hush and fabrication of stories before the truth is ultimately found out is crap. This is a problem of their own making. Report the truth when you know it, even if it shows you in bad light. Freely admit what happened to any and all and live with the consequences of the truth. If a network news station does this, they're rightly raked over the coals and heads roll. If the gov't does it, it's all right? 149030[/snapback] I don't like it. But I accept it in military operations, since it's been a solid feature of EVERY military operation run by every government in history. Comparing it to BSE/vCJD is ludicrous, nearly BF-like. To compare it to something as utterly meaningless as presidential fellatio is asinine. What would your alternative be? To hear that every single operation the military ever runs is in some way !@#$ed up? Is there some sort of way that the inherently chaotic nature of warfare can be addressed by the American public or in open legislature? Does it serve any purpose to publicize the esoteric contributions of a colonel, a major, two captains, two lieutenants, and a couple of NCOs to a friendly fire incident in the middle of Central Asia? What, precisely, are you complaining about? That the Pentagon ran a private investigation into a military matter without asking "pretty please with sugar on it" from Congress or the press first?
_BiB_ Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Sometimes those directly involved fudge the truth, which impairs the official investigation. No one wants to intentionally look like an idiot. It's possible that because of the celebrity involved, all parties wanted it to be something that it wasn't, especially those doing the shooting. As I recall, it wasn't very long after the Tillman incident before the fratricide elements came out. I was involved in a friendly fire incident once, involving allied soldiers. I was involved in another incident involving civilians who DEFINITELY were somewhere they shouldn't have been. As far as I know neither made any press anywhere, nor do I think they should have. Everyone involved was cleared of any wrongdoing, so what would have been the point? It was extremely unfortunate that it happened, that people were somewhere they shouldn't have been, but that kind of thing happens. Too often. Those Rangers in Afghanistan probably sh-- the proverbial brick when they realized they had killed Pat. I'm not saying it's right, it definitely isn't, but stretching the truth wouldn't surprise me. It looks better for them, and it looks better for Pat.
_BiB_ Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Whatever happened to Petrino? I'm in a bad, bad mood.
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Whatever happened to Petrino? I'm in a bad, bad mood. 149423[/snapback] He'll be back when they return the ring.
_BiB_ Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 He'll be back when they return the ring. 149454[/snapback] I've deleted three different responses. They will never know, nor will they ever understand. They've never pulled a trigger.
Alaska Darin Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 I've deleted three different responses. They will never know, nor will they ever understand. They've never pulled a trigger. 149484[/snapback] No doubt.
VABills Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 I've deleted three different responses. They will never know, nor will they ever understand. They've never pulled a trigger. 149484[/snapback] What's a trigger? And why would you pull it?
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 I've deleted three different responses. They will never know, nor will they ever understand. They've never pulled a trigger. 149484[/snapback] I've never pulled a trigger. I understand. Of course...it took me nearly a quarter-century to gain that understanding. I doubt anyone's going to "get it" overnight from a message board.
VABills Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 I've never pulled a trigger. I understand. Of course...it took me nearly a quarter-century to gain that understanding. I doubt anyone's going to "get it" overnight from a message board. 149618[/snapback] Come on down, I'll take you to the range.
erynthered Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Come on down, I'll take you to the range. 149623[/snapback] Pull the trigger twice, right?
erynthered Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Whatever happened to Petrino? I'm in a bad, bad mood. 149423[/snapback] I've been waiting too...........
VABills Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Pull the trigger twice, right? 149638[/snapback] Actually a double tap, the way I was taught, is three pulls. Once to the body, twice to the head.
erynthered Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Actually a double tap, the way I was taught, is three pulls. Once to the body, twice to the head. 149649[/snapback] Double tap, thats it.
Recommended Posts