[Restorer]

Only question is whether these men had surrendered or not.

He was probably wrong to kill the first man. We have to apply the same rules to ourselves as we do to the enemy, or rules of war are meaningless.

The second man, who was trying to escape, was probably a good kill.

[steplock]

"He was probably wrong to kill the first man. We have to apply the same rules to ourselves as we do to the enemy, or rules of war are meaningless."

Ok - Innocent due to temporary insanity.

Ever been in a ferocious firefight and seen you buddies blown to pieces by an RPG? and then have to carry the little parts of bone and flesh back to a chopper pad to send home for a proper burial?

Yeah - you tend to over-react once in a while. Yes, it was technically wrong, understandable and forgivable!

Unfortunately, people who share this writer's opinion REQUIRE the sacrificial lamb to slaughter at the altar of political correctness. And if you go back through the history of warfare, there has always been the ONE major publicized ENLISTED man who gets shafted for the "righteous".

[xm177e2]

The second man, who was trying to escape, was probably a good kill.

If I surrenderred, and then saw another POW get shot in the head (twice!) I would get up and run, too.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Problem is, that we are the only ones on planet earth who are honoring the rules of engagement. THat makes our troops sitting ducks for those who hide behind women and children or train their children to kill on command.

THis Marine had just recieved a concussion in an attack that injured his brothers in arms, and at the time he killed these two enemies, he probably didn't know if his friends were dead or alive.

I second the post that said: Give him a medal.

[nanny]

I wasn't there - won't even try to judge this man. He was in a situation few of us will ever know - so as I said I won't judge.

I will say I have always thought 'Rules of WAr' to be a little strange. If we can all agree and conform to 'Rules of War" - why can't we agree not to have war. Just seems strange.

[VaBthang4]

"Only question is whether these men had surrendered or not. He was probably wrong to kill the first man. We have to apply the same rules to ourselves as we do to the enemy, or rules of war are meaningless. The second man, who was trying to escape, was probably a good kill."

And brilliance walked in the door by the fourth post.

WTF is a good kill?

Any and every Republican Guard Soldier was [and still is] fair game. I dont care if he had buried them alive. "Good kill" you gotta be kidding me.

"We have to apply the same rules"....Jesus man get a life.