Replies

Well, congrats, while you were "mitigating threats" and stroking your ponderous moral code, the chopper was rocketed and now 12 of you men are dead, but that's a small price to pay to maintain your sense of fair play. I'm sure their families are glad you have such character and integrity.

In the other Col. West thread, I asked you questions that you declined to answer:

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Army Right To Punish Lt. Col. West, jaykay wrote:

How many ambushes, rockets fired at helicopters, roadside bombs and other attacks on U.S. forces may have been averted if more officers had the onions that Col West has? How many who are dead would be alive? How many maimed would be whole?

Now that Col. West has been made an example of, how many commanders who would have taken a risk to protect their men will now decline to do so? How many will be killed and maimed in order to preserve this idiotic notion of playing nice at war?

I guess those questions are not so easy for you to answer so glibly. Maybe you can think of the answers while you help scrape up what's left of the 12 who died for your rulebook.

I'll answer your questions you posed earlier.

Re: averted earlier - It is quite obvious that your contempt for honorable soldiers runs deep, I'll be happy to inform you that, with the exception of a very few, every soldier in Iraq right now has onions that make LTC Wests look tiny. I won't even bother to explain to a rape advocate why.

Re: taking risk to protect men - Our soldiers will do the things it takes to do to protect their fellow soldiers, within the law, and their lawful orders. Rape advocates need not apply.

Your made up scenario advocating rape to protect the pretend lives of 12 soldiers has no effect on me. If soldiers were to die because information was unobtainable by legitimate means then it would have been out of my hands and of no fault of my own. I would feel grief for the loss but no guilt because I stopped short of rape to get the info. You should seek help.