WTF is so vague about “I would follow the well-crafted mission order.”?
Freaking happy now, UB?
Push it, you piece of shit.
Because that doesn’t mean shit. You can’t answer specifically, because the most likely course of action you would take, would be one of the methods that you have deemed illegal. Slipping and sliding away… hehe.
Btw I don’t think the airing of anyone’s dirty laundry is beneficial to the OP or anything else. Leave the baggage out of it.
What dirty laundry? I didn’t lie to anyone.
Oh, and you know me so well as to know that I’d likely abandon someone or kill them? Don’t give up the day job…I hear prophecy’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
No you would probably stonewall them to death. At least we are whittling this down.
You wont abandon them.
You wont execute them.
Its a start, feed me some more clues please.
I’m kind of curious, Gus. I mean besides curious as to who you are.
Up above you say
Yet, I find only one other interaction with you on this board:
Bite me, Uncle Sam
where you say
So, now I’m curious, are you saying that you’ve disagreed with good points for years?
World Eater: Stonewall them to death? I wonder if that’s prosecutable?
I wouldn’t be surprised if you suggested someone could get court-martialed for it.
Let’s recap.
You wont abandon them.
You wont execute them.
You won’t stonewall them to death with your drivel.
Keep 'em coming.
Gus, I really don’t give a rat’s ass if Monty was a Remington Raider for 20 years. I take at face value what he said about his Services, his Years, and his Units. If he specialized in cleaning the crapper, he served in those units, and deployed with them, and learned from his time in. More than likely.
Monty, have you ever heard the saying “No OpPlan ever survives first contact”? But be that as it may, Your Mission Order (using the Marine Corps 5-Paragraph Order format)
Paragraph 4, Admin and Logistics, Subparagraph © Bad Guys
“Avoid enemy contact at all costs during Phase 1 enroute to Objective D. Stealth and speed are paramount in initial movement. Avoid at all costs capturing POWs during Phase 1. POW’s captured during Phase II shall be handled according to 5 S’s and transported to LZ Chickenhawk for extraction with the team. Transport POW’s to the Bn XO immediately upon return to base.”
Your mission is a day’s hard march to the objective (a bridge) under stealthy conditions, the destruction of that bridge with 24 hours of your departure, and the egress in the best way possible to the Landing Zone for helo extraction 36 hours from your departure. You depart at dawn in a team of 10. You need 8 at a minimum to complete the mission, and you are in radio EMCON until the bridge is destroyed in order to avoid triangulation and detection. 26 hours after your departure, an enemy armored column is going to cross that bridge and link up with it’s ammo train, then descend on the town in the next valley and destroy it, continuing a program of ethnic genocide. If the column is stopped, they can be picked off when the A-10’s arrive in 48 hours.
10 hours after you stepped off on this stealthy, secret mission, two of your men are struck by lightning and die. You are now down to your bare minimum to accomplish the mission, and you are 60 minutes behind schedule after being slowed by the storm, then securing the bodies of your fallen comrades and redistributing the explosives and equipment to the surviving team members.
An enemy soldier with a sprained ankle stumbles across your team, waving a white flag. He is otherwise healthy. You know his motorized infantry unit is within 5 miles of your position, but he seems alone. His sidearm is holstered.
Your choices are:
A) Kill him
B) Set him free as is
C) Take his weapon and search him, then set him free
D) Take his weapon and search him, then take him with you
E) Take him prisoner and leave a man back to guard him
F) Tie him to a small tree, leaving him food and water that he can reach and eat and drink, take his weapon, and leave him
A and B are just wrong.
If you choose C, he can be back at his unit in 2 hours, and they can begin their search for you. Your stealth is blown. The bridge stays intact, and the kiddies die.
If you choose D, you will be slowed by his injury, and lose the element of stealth, and the chances of the mission failing increase dramatically. The kiddies die.
If you choose E, you do not have the manpower to accomplish the mission, you might as well go home and watch the kiddies die.
If you choose F, the chances are high that his unit will find him after a search, but that would give you a huge headstart, since his location is next to a waterfall and out of sight from above. It would take his unit until the next morning to get down into the gorge where you stashed him. The kiddies may live to see their next birthday.
Make me freaking happy. Please?
This an ethical dilemma, but a person needs to act, and be prepared to defend his actions with reason.
I wonder how he would do taking the Kobayashi Maru.
:rolleyes:
So what you want Monty to do is give a response to a situation where a) he can’t possibly make a good decision, b) the only reasonable decisions offered are illegal, yet still bad, and c) you already have your responses canned and are just waiting to pounce on him as a traitor, hypocrite, or murderer, since those are the only possible outcomes of this little exercise. Really tasteful, guys.
Monty, don’t answer. Just leave this behind. There is nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost by answering that question.
And as for the rest of you, may you never find yourselves in the position you’re describing. I mean that. But don’t you DARE think that you have the right to demand an answer by saying “Answer the fuckin’ question”. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY knows what they would do until it happens. There are too many unknowns to make that kind of judgment, especially from behind a computer screen.
You guys are really disappointing me right now.
GusNspot = CatBiker
No, I won’t keep on about your service, that is yours. I told you those people are not going to be brought into this.
I agree that what ever the jobs were, that is cool. I did not do 20 years. Why I didn’t and could I have and how much I did is not germane IMO. I started back in 1961.
My Son was in for 11 years. My uncles and cousins, and BIL’s and friends , Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy, USCC Some are / were career and some died serving their country. One Uncle was killed as an Naval Pilot on December 8th, 1941. One young cousin of mine was the Marine in charge that took the Kuwait airport. Lt. Col. to E- 4’s, W-1’s to W-4’s… So what… Just means that with their experiences and my own, I just might know of what I speak. That is not the issue.
Yeah, you are known to me. So what. That is not the issue. I won’t say squat. You are an honorable soldier, just a bit thin skinned, which really amazes me but…
Now that I have your attention, would you please just stand up and say what you would do or have done, if it will not get you in trouble. You went on and on about how the rules cover it all. Myself and others have disagreed. I don’t really care what you would do or didn’t do or anything else in that manner. I am willing to do things and not do things too.
It is about giving the impression that YOU in your military experience are the be all and end of what is and what was and most importantly, what is right and wrong … and IMO, not you, nor I nor anyone else is. So far, you are the only military person here making absolute statements and that is MY problem. I don’t think you are right and to make, to the civilians, all the vague references that mean nothing to them but much to those who have been in the service, well. …Bah…!!
Okay, now for my answer UB’s post with all his givens as stated. I personally would have to at minimum, tie him to a tree and gag him and I think that would be my weakest response. He (the prisoner) would probably choke to death anyway…I just might kill him depending on what is what at that given instance.
That could be murder. According to the rules, it is, right? So that makes me a bad guy. :: shrug :::I have to live with it or not and I know that even now but those kinds of things come up in life, especially in the service.
You can call me what you want, but if you were in MY patrol, you getting back alive is only second to a critical operation. Yeah, Yeah, I know you would die before serving with me… you can skip that or do a PIT RANT about that too.
My soldiers were always first in every way I could. I figure the other guys were operating more or less on the same idea no matter any conventions. But that is just me. Probably no other soldier was as FUBAR as I. When the ca ca hits the fan, a lot of the times so does the rule book and you know it. Or you should.
That is my point as well as I can state it.
Lighten up Doors, this is just a fucking MB and his answer isn’t gonna have any major affect upon his life.
“a lot to be lost” What bullshit!
You know what, dude, if you had any friggin’ idea what Code of Conduct training does to people, you’d understand where I’m coming from.
I nearly came unglued after a mere 36 hours of dealing with questions like that where no matter what I said I’d be called a traitor. Loaded questions are very dangerous things to answer, because once answered they can go in many different directions, and none of them are good.
I have very personal reasons behind what I wrote to Monty. You cannot even begin to understand where I’m coming from, so I’d rather you just kept your opinions to yourself, please.
Incidentally, I actually know people from this MB personally, and do you really think that I’d ever be able to look them in the eye again if they called me a traitor or a hypocrite? Keep in mind that to some of us this is actually more than a message board, if you don’t mind. What you say really DOES matter, in a lot of cases.
Airman, glad to have you back.
Yes, that is a condition where you HAVE to make a choice as to what rule you break. Making that decision with the best possible outcome it what is important. To reply that the law would be followed without exception is a copout.
Listen putz, if you think how someone answers to a hypothetical question on a fucking MB really matters then you might want to seek some professional help. I’ll bet you a dollar to a dime no one here will ever be in such a situation and so whatever they answer, it won’t mean squat. JMHO
Besides it’s really up to Monty to answer or not. I’m sure he can handle the heat…from what he says he’s been around the block a time or two.
It seems clear that until pants are dropped, and dicks are measured, this fucknugget bickering will never end.
Oh, I get it now. You made them up.
I give up. You’re right, I’m wrong.
Happy now?
Incidentally, I DID need psychological help after Resistance Training. I wanted to kill my captors. It was tough to deal with. And by law, that’s all I can say, otherwise I’d lay out everything they did to me. So, thank you for your understanding, sir. I knew I could count on you. :rolleyes:
Monty, I tried to help you out, but you’re on your own.
I appreciate it, Doors. Also, glad to see you back on the ol’ board.
I’m just not incredibly (or at all) impressed by Gus.
From reading these two threads, here’s what I’ve gathered:
- I’d never ever want to get drunk with Monty or around GusnSpot.
- The Geneva Convention has some pretty strict rules on what can be done with POWs. Thank you, Monty, for citing that stuff – it fought ignorance.
- The UCMJ has some pretty strict rules on dereliction of duty. Again, thanks for the cite, although I kinda suspected they had strict rules like that.
I’m not a military buff, but your cites from the UCMJ didn’t seem to mention POWs explicitly; maybe I missed something?
I think UncleBill’s latest hypothetical was in response to his frustration with Monty: he seems to be saying (and as near as I can tell, he’s right) that there are situations in which the rules contradict one another. Monty’s refrain of “Follow the Geneva Convention, Follow the UCMJ,” seems to deny that these two sets of rules are ever contradictory.
Monty, do you agree that these rules are sometimes contradictory? If not, how can a soldier act in UncleBill’s hypothetical such that he not violate one or the other set of rules?
That part isn’t penis-comparing; I think that’s a valid question. And I’m really curious as to the answer, and would be delighted to see how a soldier might resolve what looks like a no-win situation to me.
I can only speak for myself, but I’m certainly not gonna call someone a traitor or murderer based on how they answer this question, and certainly the point of asking it isn’t to humiliate someone; rather, it’s to get clarity on the question of whether the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ sometimes cannot both be followed.
Daniel