Did they shoot at you? Did you shoot back? Were you in a position to be taken prisoner or to take prisoners?
Since you brought up your Korean friend, I was shot at by the North Koreans, to bad they missed huh? I was stationed with in the same area as the ROK’s. I was in their trenches with them. I had several friends among them, I was friends with some really great KSC’s too. I was friends with many civilian Koreans too. So what. I do not try to use vague mention of silly things to impress the civilians among us. I can say things like = Viet Nam, Germany, Border Guard … and that leaves the impression ---- get it? ---- About your guard assignment… If they weren’t armed, they (the guys on the other side ) were really different from the norm huh?
Yes, you’re talking about expediency. We get it already. Monty, on the other hand, is talking about what you’re supposed to do. You are not “supposed” to do the expedient thing–you are “supposed” to take the man prisoner, ensure his safety, etc. Whether you would do that is a different question, and not one suited to GD (as manhattan and bibliophage have made quite plain).
Now let it go or start a IMHO thread titled “What would you do if you couldn’t take an enemy soldier prisoner?”
Maybe I am confused - it is hard to follow what is being said in this thread. Gus, are you asking for proof whether or not Monty was a combat vet? Monty, are you asking the same of Gus?
We have an all inclusive but simple term here at the Department of Veterans Affairs that qualifies some veterans for certain benefits - “combat veteran”. I am not sure what Gus and Monty are trying to get from one another but maybe a lot of fighting and threats to kick each others asses IRL could be avoided if you each just answer a simple question without skirting the issue (come on guys, lighten up. I like you both and I hate seeing it get to that point).
Does your DD-214 specifically show you as a combat veteran or list things such as:
AIR FORCE CROSS
AIR MEDAL WITH V DEVICE
ARMY COMMENDATION MEDAL WITH V DEVICE
BRONZE STAR MEDAL WITH V DEVICE
COMBAT ACTION RIBBON
COMBAT INFANTRYMAN BADGE
COMBAT MEDICAL BADGE
DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE CROSS
JOINT SERVICE COMMENDATION MEDAL WITH V DEVICE
MEDAL OF HONOR
NAVY COMMENDATION MEDAL WITH V DEVICE
NAVY CROSS
PURPLE HEART
SILVER STAR
If I am totally off the wall here and not understanding this part of the argument, please just ignore me.
Now we come to the crux of the issue from the other thread. That thead was titled “What are you supposed to do with the enemy when taking them prisoner isn’t feasable”. I understood that title to be defined as Merriam-Webster has chosen to use as definition number one in their treatment of the correct spelling, “feasible”, which is
You see here I read it to mean that circumstances were such that you were incapable of accepting the prisoner, and providing proper care of that prisoner. In my example I attempted to provide a mission scenario where the team WAS incapable of accepting a prisoner of war, as the thread title asked. Given this restriction, you automatically depart from the Geneva Convention rules for handling him, as you cannot accept him, and you are also confronted with Article 99 of the UCMJ, which prohibits the release of prisoners of war, or allowing them to escape.
This is called a Catch-22.
It is also a real possibility on the battlefield. The question may have been misplaced in GQ, since there does not seem to be a schoolbook solution, and all our conversations were mostly in the realm of hypothesis.
We were not talking about expediency. It is never convenient to take prisoners. To tie and abondon due to expediency was not what I was talking about. We were talking about the inability to take them prisoner, at which point our options are few:
Kill him. All rational posters agree this is not an option.
Release him. Violation of Article 99, assuming he does get you all killed first.
Constrain (tie up) then get someone else to pick him up later, or you yourself come back, or even give the location to the Red Cross.
Unless he suffers an ill-timed stroke and dies at your feet, you have to make a decision that violates SOMETHING.
Interpreting the question in that manner would mean it (and the answers) belong in GD or IMHO, as manhattan and bibliophage have made quite clear. Posturing and speculation about what’s the “best” or “safest” thing to do have no place in GD. If you’ve had a superior tell you what to do–as a few posters have described–then you’ve got a GD answer. If you’re just posturing and making shit up as you go along, that’s the wrong thread to do it in.
I sure wish somebody would explain to me what the hell whether or not Monty was actually in combat, or actually shot anybody, or was actually shot at, or actually carried 70 pounds of equipment on a death march through the jungle or actually packed a wounded comrade out on his shoulders 'cause the Medevac chopper couldn’t find them or actually gutted any Enemy with a Boy Scout penknife or actually dropped any grenades on any hapless civilians just to watch them explode in a gazillion tiny bloody pieces…
…has to do with his responses to the purely hypothetical question posed in the linked GQ thread, whose OP was,
I mean, geez, Gus, it’s like you’re saying, “Only people who have ever held a Tupperware party in their home may post a response to the question, ‘While I was in the bathroom, one of my Tupperware party guests apparently absconded with the Large Pick-A-Deli® Container and the Three-Piece Serving Bowl Set, what should I do?’”
But, hey, it’s always a pleasure to watch Monty, and Minty, in action, be the Pit rant never so lame. You go, guys!
I’ve met Gus in person, and I must say that he comes across quite differently. He learned to use a computer and type with one arm in a sling, later in life, which (to me) explains a lot about his unique posting style. He’s not at all stupid. I do find his posts rather hard to understand, because he uses non-standard phrasing, but worth the effort.
Take that as you will. I have no dog in this fight, since I haven’t read the original thread, nor have I been a combat soldier, except in roleplaying games.
Thank you Lynn. I’ll chime in to agree with you that I have never thought of Gus as being stupid - just the opposite, in fact. His posting style is a little hard to follow, but he is an intelligent man.
I do think that some people are unfairly placing judgements on him in this thread.
