I like what this man stands for

#52
#52
Now this is something you don't see every day............ you deleted parts of my post.... hmm.......
 
#53
#53
I wish I lived in that district, so I could cast a vote for Col. West.

and it's obvious that LG has never worn a uniform and will never understand the pressure of life in a combat zone
 
#55
#55
MG1968 said:
I wish I lived in that district, so I could cast a vote for Col. West.

and it's obvious that LG has never worn a uniform and will never understand the pressure of life in a combat zone
Click to expand...


I've said it before and will say it again: not having been a member of the military does not disqualify me from having an opinion on such issues. It certainly does not prevent me from appreciating the fact that the guy was court martialed for having taken such extreme actions, was convicted, and then resigned from the military under the cloud of what he had done.

Moreover, you reference people taking action under "the pressure of life in a combat zone." Its not like he inadvertently fired upon a civilian while taking fire. From the details we have, it was thought out and there was plenty of time to say, hey wait a second, faking an execution style gunshot to the man's head might not be consistent with my orders.

If what you said had an OUNCE of integrity to it -- that only those who have served can have an opinion -- then how do you explain to me how it is that he was court martialed and found guilty by the military?
 
#56
#56
He should have been thinking about his political future rather than saving lives, in other words?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
lawgator1 said:
I've said it before and will say it again: not having been a member of the military does not disqualify me from having an opinion on such issues. It certainly does not prevent me from appreciating the fact that the guy was court martialed for having taken such extreme actions, was convicted, and then resigned from the military under the cloud of what he had done.

Moreover, you reference people taking action under "the pressure of life in a combat zone." Its not like he inadvertently fired upon a civilian while taking fire. From the details we have, it was thought out and there was plenty of time to say, hey wait a second, faking an execution style gunshot to the man's head might not be consistent with my orders.

If what you said had an OUNCE of integrity to it -- that only those who have served can have an opinion -- then how do you explain to me how it is that he was court martialed and found guilty by the military?
Click to expand...

Umm, he was NOT court martialed.

He took actions to prevent futher attacks. Clearly the military command did not think the offense serious enough to court martial him or give him a dishonorable discharge. He admitted what he had done and that it violated code. They relieved him of his command and gave him a nominal fine. That is all.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
It certainly does not prevent me from appreciating the fact that the guy was court martialed for having taken such extreme actions, was convicted, and then resigned from the military under the cloud of what he had done.

If what you said had an OUNCE of integrity to it -- that only those who have served can have an opinion -- then how do you explain to me how it is that he was court martialed and found guilty by the military?
Click to expand...

when was he court-martialed?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/index.html

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 4th Infantry's top general in Tikrit, could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial. If he were to be found guilty at a court martial of the two articles against him, West could have faced 11 years in prison, a military prosecutor told CNN.
Click to expand...
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
I've said it before and will say it again: not having been a member of the military does not disqualify me from having an opinion on such issues. It certainly does not prevent me from appreciating the fact that the guy was court martialed for having taken such extreme actions, was convicted, and then resigned from the military under the cloud of what he had done.

Moreover, you reference people taking action under "the pressure of life in a combat zone." Its not like he inadvertently fired upon a civilian while taking fire. From the details we have, it was thought out and there was plenty of time to say, hey wait a second, faking an execution style gunshot to the man's head might not be consistent with my orders.

If what you said had an OUNCE of integrity to it -- that only those who have served can have an opinion -- then how do you explain to me how it is that he was court martialed and found guilty by the military?
Click to expand...

you know what they say about opinions. . .
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
I've said it before and will say it again: not having been a member of the military does not disqualify me from having an opinion on such issues. It certainly does not prevent me from appreciating the fact that the guy was court martialed for having taken such extreme actions, was convicted, and then resigned from the military under the cloud of what he had done.

Moreover, you reference people taking action under "the pressure of life in a combat zone." Its not like he inadvertently fired upon a civilian while taking fire. From the details we have, it was thought out and there was plenty of time to say, hey wait a second, faking an execution style gunshot to the man's head might not be consistent with my orders.

If what you said had an OUNCE of integrity to it -- that only those who have served can have an opinion -- then how do you explain to me how it is that he was court martialed and found guilty by the military?
Click to expand...

he wasn't court-martialed. He was given an article 32 hearing where he admitted wrongdoing. He paid a fine, then retired shortly thereafter.

At a hearing, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again. "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can," he said
Click to expand...

I'm thankful for men like Allen West.
 
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
He was disgraced under Bush's administration. I think that says a lot about the severity of his offenses.

You can spin it all you want. The guy is a menace.
Click to expand...

I don't blame him one bit for getting rough with someone who was suspected of having information that would KEEP HIS SOLDIERS ALIVE.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#62
#62
ridethelightening said:
He should have been thinking about his political future rather than saving lives, in other words?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


He could have followed orders. How about that?


volinbham said:
Umm, he was NOT court martialed.

He took actions to prevent futher attacks. Clearly the military command did not think the offense serious enough to court martial him or give him a dishonorable discharge. He admitted what he had done and that it violated code. They relieved him of his command and gave him a nominal fine. That is all.
Click to expand...

utvolpj said:
when was he court-martialed?

CNN.com - U.S. officer fined for harsh interrogation tactics - Dec. 13, 2003
Click to expand...


My mistake on the court martial. I gather it was lesser version of prosecution.

However, as to your other comments, imagine if the Dems ran someone who had been in military and was fined and relieved of command for misconduct in the field? You guys would be apopleptic that he would have the gall to run for office.

As to your comment that he just did what he thought he needed to do, please. That's the whole point -- he is not authorized to decide that if it means violating his orders. Which he did. And he admits that and quit.

Now, you may think he made the right decision. But that means you disagree with the orders. I've no problem with you debating the viability of the orders. However, you must concede that it was not his decision to make.

Honestly, I am surprised by your defense of this. He did what he was ordered not to do, he pondered it, he knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway. Why would you want this guy in Congress?

Makes no sense.
 
#63
#63
I believe Sestak was relieved of command for creating a poor command climate (basically failure to do his job) - you haven't heard peep from me about that have you?
 
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
He was disgraced under Bush's administration. I think that says a lot about the severity of his offenses.

You can spin it all you want. The guy is a menace.
Click to expand...

I know people who served under him during this event. He certainly is not regarded as a menace. In fact, he is very highly regarded. I'll take their opinion over yours.

As for what he did, he knew what the consequences of his actions were going to be and he did it anyway to save the lives of his soldiers
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
MG1968 said:
he wasn't court-martialed. He was given an article 32 hearing where he admitted wrongdoing. He paid a fine, then retired shortly thereafter.



I'm thankful for men like Allen West.
Click to expand...

hate to rip off emanivol but:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lawgator? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
 
#67
#67
droski said:
hate to rip off emanivol but:

Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lawgator? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Click to expand...

nicely done. I'm also reminded of the quote attributed to George Orwell:

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm."
 
#68
#68
lawgator1 said:
He could have followed orders. How about that?







My mistake on the court martial. I gather it was lesser version of prosecution.

However, as to your other comments, imagine if the Dems ran someone who had been in military and was fined and relieved of command for misconduct in the field? You guys would be apopleptic that he would have the gall to run for office.

If it were for a similar situation I certainly wouldn't. Men like this are exactly the kind of person you want leading you in a combat zone.

As to your comment that he just did what he thought he needed to do, please. That's the whole point -- he is not authorized to decide that if it means violating his orders. Which he did. And he admits that and quit.

Now, you may think he made the right decision. But that means you disagree with the orders. I've no problem with you debating the viability of the orders. However, you must concede that it was not his decision to make.

Honestly, I am surprised by your defense of this. He did what he was ordered not to do, he pondered it, he knew it was wrong, and he did it anyway. Why would you want this guy in Congress?

Because he weighed the lives of his fellow soldiers against an order that may well have meant he would have to write letters to the families of some of his men.

Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a guy like this is exactly what we need. A man who will stand up for those he serves with and represents, a guy that will make the tough decisions to do what needs to be done then faces the music honorably when the time comes. That is exactly what we don't have enough of representing us right now.
 
#69
#69
KB5252 said:
Perhaps a guy like this is exactly what we need. A man who will stand up for those he serves with and represents, a guy that will make the tough decisions to do what needs to be done then faces the music honorably when the time comes. That is exactly what we don't have enough of representing us right now.
Click to expand...

agreed. compare that to a dbag coward like kerry taking credit for other people's accomplishments. a guy like kerry would have covered his ass in a situation like this. this guy steps up and says "I did what was right and I would do it again." I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
 
#71
#71
Thank God none of you has authority over anyone with a gun. You do not appreciate the proper exercise of power and the dividing lines of authority.
 
#72
#72
lawgator1 said:
Thank God none of you has authority over anyone with a gun. You do not appreciate the proper exercise of power and the dividing lines of authority.
Click to expand...

perhaps you are not aware that it is a officer's DUTY (not just right) to disobey immoral orders. obviously his fellow officer's agreed.
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
droski said:
agreed. compare that to a dbag coward like kerry taking credit for other people's accomplishments. a guy like kerry would have covered his ass in a situation like this. this guy steps up and says "I did what was right and I would do it again." I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Don't forget thay Kerry would have testified against him.
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
Thank God none of you has authority over anyone with a gun. You do not appreciate the proper exercise of power and the dividing lines of authority.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness you have no authority over people with guns, if it was up to you orders would always be right and a soldier would never be able to ignore an order if it meant the senseless deaths of fellow soldiers or civilians.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top