http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/29/tillman.report/index.html
War is hell.
With the popularity of advocating revenge killing even non-culpable people for American (soldier or mercenary) deaths in the WOT, will any hardcore war supporters committ suicide?
Before the pro-war folks come barging in and start spouting about liberals using this to further their own agenda I’d like to say that the sad irony of his death detracts not a whit from my admiration I and I assume others hold for Tillman and how he held duty to his country as he understood it above acquiring riches.
…THE admiration…
God, I wish we could edit. :smack:
I agree with dropzone. His death sucks no more or no less than we I thought he was killed by Iraqis.
War is definitely hell, and friendly fire is part of that.
Yep. I’m not sure it’s fair to even draw a distinction. People on a modern battlefield are in a very high threat environment. Friendly fire is an unavoidable cost of war - it has been in every war. If anything it’s gotten worse because the use of precision weaponry means that the U.S. is dropping bombs and firing gatling guns in much closer proximity to friendly troops. This is a good thing overall - ‘close in’ air support no doubt saves the bacon of far more soldiers than are killed or wounded by it. But it’s risky, and that’s why soldiers like Tillman deserve our undying respect and gratitude. He knew the risks, including the risks from friendly fire. And he did his job anyway.
I’m not quite sure why Reeder felt compelled to open a pit thread over this, though. Was this supposed to be a pitting of the military? Or Tillman? Or what?
I hope, although it may not be true, he was trying to refer to the ugliness of war in general. A young man who gave up so much to go fight in a foreign land (in Afghanistan, I could not agree more with our intervention) was killed but not by those who wanted to do so. It is an unintended consequence of war and should give every leader pause before they engage in it’s dangerous game.
Thus, it, IMHO, does not belittle Tillman, or even the Military, rather it shows that there are more dangers than just the enemy in war. Sadly, our President simply wants to push for more war to advance what he believes. Tillman’s sacrifice and decision to fight was not in vain, but sadly his death was caused by the situation just as other soldiers and civilians have suffered.
War killed him, not the enemy, not friendly fire; only war is the culprit and the death, evil and hatred it creates.
That’s how I read it, Lissa.
There apparently might not have been any enemies around to be fighting with:
Very sad, and very strange. Why is it that every story seems to come down to what the military says vs. what some foreign source says?
Not to mention- friendly fire in a non-combat situation? I have to say, if this Afghan official isn’t just making things up, it sure seems like this death was completely in vain.
There definitely is irony here. Following his death he became some sort of patron saint for the “War on Terrorism” and now it turns out it wasn’t terrorists at all who killed him but anti-terrorists.
I agree. I fail to see the great irony. Freindly fire incidents are probably more common than we know. It sucks, but it happens. I think Tillman probably knew this going in.
By Taliban. If we believed he was killed by Iraqis we’d be guilty of mixing up our battles and antagonists. But I do get and agree with the point.
:smack:
Well, damn, Reeder, I guess you are bummed that this thread didn’t turn into the “Bushco” bashing free for all that you obviously (from your history) wanted.
Kudos to the level-headed posters/responses.
Then again, it’s early… :rolleyes:
That was entirely fucking unnecessary.
Yes, Reeder has a hard-on for Bush-bashing… but did he even mention Bush? No. He posted a small passage from an article, pointed out that “war is hell” (which I defy you to disagree with, whatever your political views) and left it at that.
Kudos to the level headed posters/responses, but none to you, jackass. You’ve done exactly what you accuse Reeder of doing.
Given **Reeder **'s history, that expectation is not at all unreasonable.
Friendly fire incidents seem to be giving enemy-induced deaths a run for their money in actual battlefield situations. I think the main reason for this is: enemy induced combat deaths are low, since we haveth the 600-pounds of laser guided molten uranium gun, and they haveth not. But FF deaths are likewise higher because it is our strategy to use overwhelming force at the drop of a hat. All in all, probably a lot less deaths overall.
No, I merely made a preemptive strike, jackass. You should lighten up, because believe me, what I said will be said by many others.
Look at my reg date and post count. I was jest offering sample of what the likes of you do every day. Fuckin cheers dipshit
Still, Reeder didn’t do it in this thread. If he does it so much, you can attack him for it in every other thread. This thread is completely devoid of Bush bashing, so what good does it do to go after Reeder about how all Reeder does is bash Bush in this thread? Talk about a freaking no-win situation.
-preview-
What the fuck, Klaatu? The fact that you don’t shit on a thread very often makes it OK that you did it in this situation? Christ almighty, what an intellect you are.
Your reg date and post count would have indicated to me that you would have had more sense than to post what you did when you did.
Guess I was wrong.