Quoted: I understand all that, and you have very valid points.  I just took offense that you said that saving those two Soldiers was "wrong".  Wrong denotes immorality (in my mind), what should be said is that what Yon did was against the rules, yes, and those rules have a reason.  But saving the life of another is never wrong.

I would think by my other comments that you would assume wrong to equal Incorrect. It's never "wrong" to want to save a human life, but his paradigm shifted when he swapped his gun for a Canon.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly.

Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about.

I never claimed to "KNOW" shit.
I have an opinion and I expressed it, with a disclaimer.

Thats what an OPINION is.

I didnt post it as fact did I?

Quoted: Not that it is particularly well observed by the other side.  but while we are arresting and confining illegal combatants and having all sorts of political problems with it, tolerating illegal combatants in and around our forces is setting a precedent that we dont want to deal with. And once our non-combatants start taking active parts in hostilities, it makes all our other non-combatants fair game. That's probably the theory.  In practice, it is nice but since the other side doesn't observe it, in practical terms it is moot. HOWEVER, with all the anti-American politicoes all around the world, any opportunity for them to point out OUR violations of the rules of war in the world press is not helping our political war.

In Korea and Vietnam there were reporters who fought, and no one had any problem with it. And the enemy we currently face will kill whomever anyway. This is BS.

Quoted: Yon made the choice to be impartial when he went over there to cover the war, I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I've read every one of his posts since he started this gig, and I don't remember seeing him ever say he's impartial.

Why should he be impartial?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about. I never claimed to "KNOW" shit. I have an opinion and I expressed it, with a disclaimer. Thats what an OPINION is. I didnt post it as fact did I?

You don't think it's a good idea to actually KNOW something before giving an opinion?
Especially a charged opinion like that?

How do you know "The Army" is "political"?
How do yoiu know" "The Marines" would do a better job in something they've NEVER done before?
How the fuck can you have a "beef" with "Army brass" when you've never worked with them?

I worked at the CORPS level for several years and I can confirm that some GO's (that's "General Officers" to you) are political.  Most others are not.

At least go through Boot Camp before taking on the brainwashing.

Hint:  There's a reason Walter Reed was (until the press and politicians started lying to score points) considered one of THE BEST military hospitals in the world.

Hint:  It has nothing to do with the USMC (as great as they are).

Quoted: Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

He did the job that needed doing at the moment.

Quoted: Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.

There is no such thing as an impartial observer.

I would like to add something here about the nature of laws, because when you read between the lines of this case it is apparent that this is not at all about whether reporters should pick up guns and aid wounded soldiers.

One of the first things they teach you in law school is that no law can possibly be drafted which takes care of every eventuality, which is why reading the text of the law isn't always sufficient in reaching the correct decision.  For instance, take the example of trespassing laws.  If property is marked, you cannot enter onto their property.  However, if you saw your 3 year old child wandering on marked property, would it be trespassing to go and get your child?  The only sane answer is no, it would not be trespassing (or alternatively, that it was excusable trespassing).  Law is an expression of the intent of the body passing that law, and no sane person could possibly believe that when the trespassing law was written the legislature intended to prevent parents from rescuing their children.  But since it is impossible to write in every possible exception, most legislatures don't even try, but leave it to the court to interpret in light of reason and experience.  Any sane judge would find the parent not guilty of any crime because it is obvious that the law was not intended to be enforced in this manner.

Same with the reporters and weapons rule.  The question I would ask is whether any of the other instances of reporters taking up weapons got the reporter in trouble.  I suspect the answer is no in most cases, because like other rules, "reporter's not being armed" is subject to the rule of reason, which says that in extreme cases the reporter should take up arms and fire back.  What is going on here, it appears, is that the brass is deliberately making an unreasonable interpretation of the law in order to punish someone they don't like for unrelated reasons.  Classic abuse of power.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about. I never claimed to "KNOW" shit. I have an opinion and I expressed it, with a disclaimer. Thats what an OPINION is. I didnt post it as fact did I? You don't think it's a good idea to actually KNOW something before giving an opinion? Especially a charged opinion like that? How do you know "The Army" is "political"? How do yoiu know" "The Marines" would do a better job in something they've NEVER done before? How the fuck can you have a "beef" with "Army brass" when you've never worked with them. I worked at the CORPS level for several years and I can confirm that some GO's (that's "General Officers" to you) are political.  Most others are not. At least go through Boot Camp before taking on the brainwashing.

My opinion, and it is just that, an opinion comes from the several officers that i know in both the Marine Corps and the Army.
Also by watching many of the Armed Service commitee hearings that are televised on CSPAN.
This opinion, and it is just an opinion, is based on those things.

I believe I made it quite clear that is is just an opinion.

I am sure you have an opinion on the use of heroin, even though you may not have personal experience with it.

One is allowed to form an opinion based on the information they have at hand.
It may or may not be correct but that is why they are called opinions.

I also said that my opinion may be moot, which I am sure that it is, however it is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Just as you are entitled to your opinion that my opinion is crap.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about. I never claimed to "KNOW" shit. I have an opinion and I expressed it, with a disclaimer. Thats what an OPINION is. I didnt post it as fact did I? You don't think it's a good idea to actually KNOW something before giving an opinion? Especially a charged opinion like that? How do you know "The Army" is "political"? How do yoiu know" "The Marines" would do a better job in something they've NEVER done before? How the fuck can you have a "beef" with "Army brass" when you've never worked with them. I worked at the CORPS level for several years and I can confirm that some GO's (that's "General Officers" to you) are political.  Most others are not. At least go through Boot Camp before taking on the brainwashing. My opinion, and it is just that, an opinion comes from the several officers that i know in both the Marine Corps and the Army. Also by watching many of the Armed Service commitee hearings that are televised on CSPAN. This opinion, and it is just an opinion, is based on those things. I believe I made it quite clear that is is just an opinion. I am sure you have an opinion on the use of heroin, even though you may not have personal experience with it. One is allowed to form an opinion based on the information they have at hand. It may or may not be correct but that is why they are called opinions. I also said that my opinion may be moot, which I am sure that it is, however it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that my opinion is crap.

You formed an opinion based on the opinions of others?
I formed my opinion of your opinion based on my knowlege of your knowlege.
Yes, your opinion is crap.

You got at least one thing right today.  

Quoted: Quoted:No, it was not the wrong thing to do.  It might have been against the rules, but it sure as hell wasn't wrong. Sometimes morality and legality aren't the same thing. You need to think about this in a larger context than this particular incident, Kurilla and Yon. These 'rules' are there for a reason. Which is worse, a single dead soldier, or hundreds of dead American reporters? Al Jazeera would LOVE to broadcast that all American reporters are spies and CIA plants as it is, having them claim that Journalists are participating in the firefighting makes every journalist in Iraq a legitimate target. I know that there's not a lot of honor with regards to rules of warfare with Jihadi terrorists, but their leadership knows that the media war on our soil is being won and they would not want to go around killing the journalists that work for news agents that help them indirectly. Killing these journalists would negate their most powerful ally, but if it were widely known that Journalists were functioning as soldiers the militias and insurgents would do what they had to do.

I, for one, thing the rules have no reason.

And, as you point out, the insurgents are relying on a propaganda war. Killing reporters might actualy backfire on them.

Quoted: Quoted: Huh. I was raised to think I was an American first, and whatever I happened to do for a living was a far distant other number. But, *shrug* Yon made the choice to be impartial when he went over there to cover the war, I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

There is no such thing as being impartial. There is the "impartial facade", but it is only a facade.

I prefer honesty in my reporting, including knowing which side the reporter is on . . .

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about.

My sentiments exactly.  It's like nails to a chalk board.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about.

My sentiments exactly.  It's like nails to a chalk board.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Army is waaayyyyy too political. When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support. (I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...) Senior Army Staff is FUBAR. A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal. (just my IMHO) Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration? There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS. Please. The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems.  The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance.  The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months. What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all. I love the Army. They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead. I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO. And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran. I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers. I said that very very clearly. Please stop posting about stuff you know nothing about. I never claimed to "KNOW" shit. I have an opinion and I expressed it, with a disclaimer. Thats what an OPINION is. I didnt post it as fact did I? You don't think it's a good idea to actually KNOW something before giving an opinion? Especially a charged opinion like that? How do you know "The Army" is "political"? How do yoiu know" "The Marines" would do a better job in something they've NEVER done before? How the fuck can you have a "beef" with "Army brass" when you've never worked with them. I worked at the CORPS level for several years and I can confirm that some GO's (that's "General Officers" to you) are political.  Most others are not. At least go through Boot Camp before taking on the brainwashing. My opinion, and it is just that, an opinion comes from the several officers that i know in both the Marine Corps and the Army. Also by watching many of the Armed Service commitee hearings that are televised on CSPAN. This opinion, and it is just an opinion, is based on those things. I believe I made it quite clear that is is just an opinion. I am sure you have an opinion on the use of heroin, even though you may not have personal experience with it. One is allowed to form an opinion based on the information they have at hand. It may or may not be correct but that is why they are called opinions. I also said that my opinion may be moot, which I am sure that it is, however it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that my opinion is crap. You formed an opinion based on the opinions of others? I formed my opinion of your opinion based on my knowlege of your knowlege. Yes, your opinion is crap. You got at least one thing right today.

No, I formed an opion based on the words and deeds of others.

In my opinion, and it's just an opinion.... all the fuck ups seem to occur where the Army is in charge.
(Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, Somalia etc)

I haven't seen the same fuck ups when the Corps is running the show.

But thats just an opinion.

Hey it's Friday, opinions are like assholes, I may be one and my opinion may be crap to you, no biggie.

Here's to Friday!

Quoted: No, I formed an opion based on the words and deeds of others. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion.... all the fuck ups seem to occur where the Army is in charge. (Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, Somalia etc) I haven't seen the same fuck ups when the Corps is running the show. But thats just an opinion. Hey it's Friday, opinions are like assholes, I may be one and my opinion may be crap to you, no biggie. Here's to Friday!

WTF?  Somalia?  By your rational, the Marine Corps fucked up in Lebanon, when a car bomb exploded in their barracks.

This is without question the dumbest post I have ever encountered.  Say what you want about LF.net, but shit like that would lead to an instant banning, and for good reason.

I need to go wash out my eyes.

Quoted: Quoted: No, I formed an opion based on the words and deeds of others. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion.... all the fuck ups seem to occur where the Army is in charge. (Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, Somalia etc) I haven't seen the same fuck ups when the Corps is running the show. But thats just an opinion. Hey it's Friday, opinions are like assholes, I may be one and my opinion may be crap to you, no biggie. Here's to Friday! WTF?  Somalia?  By your rational, the Marine Corps fucked up in Lebanon, when a car bomb exploded in their barracks. This is without question the dumbest post I have ever encountered.  Say what you want about LF.net, but shit like that would lead to an instant banning, and for good reason. I need to go wash out my eyes.

Nope not at all.

Apologies sent for any offense. And there is no comparison to Lebanon.

In NO way do I diminish the service of anyone. IN NO WAY.

The leadership and planning yes. Somalia was not well exceuted and many brave men paid. But who did the planning?
Did you notice that Adid was quiet until the Marines left?

I will refrain from expressing any more opinion as it is obviously being misinterpreted.

Let me be perfectly clear:

I admire and respect ALL who serve. That means ALL.

My criticism was aimed at top brass only and it was an opinion only.

That being said, I will not express any further opinion on this subject.
I think I have been VERY clear about my criticism and where it is aimed.

Quoted: I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog. The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO.

Since my thread has been slightly hijacked:

Historically, the USMC is probably the most political of any of the services. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist anymore. IIRC, only one service has a minimum size.

The USAF might beat them, though, at times.

Quoted: Nope not at all. Apologies sent for any offense. And there is no comparison to Lebanon.

Care to qualify that statement?  You can't simply label something as incorrect without furnishing any reasoning.  That doesn't constitute a well reasoned debate, but rather, someone talking out of their ass.

In NO way do I diminish the service of anyone. IN NO WAY. The leadership and planning yes. Somalia was not well exceuted and many brave men paid. But who did the planning?

Ahh, and I can similarly criticize the Marines for poorly planned defensive structures around the barracks.  Who did the planning there?  Clearly you feel that Marines are immune from criticism; why is that?  Is it only the Army who can be held accountable, and not Marines?  Can someone say "dogma?"

And by the way, Sun-Tzu, care to elaborate on how the operation was poorly planned?  The mission--to apprehend two of Aidid's senior leaders--was unequivocally accomplished.  Unfortunately, the political leadership pulled the plug once TFR sustained casualties, which can actually be attributed to the politicians in the first place.

Not well executed?    That's rich!  These were the best trained Soldiers the military has to offer, period.  The operation went down almost exactly as planned, up until the first MH-60 was shot down, which would have never happened had the political leadership granted TFR's request for dedicated CAS and armor assets.  

But, the request was steadfastly denied, so the TFR Soldiers made do with what they had; imagine that.

Did you notice that Adid was quiet until the Marines left?

 The Marine force deployed to Somalia numbered 20,000 Marines.  In contrast, TFR consisted of only a few hundred personnel!  

Ironic that a few hundred Army personnel were sent in to do the work of 20,000 Marines.

I will refrain from expressing any more opinion as it is obviously being misinterpreted.

Not at all.  You claim that operations, when managed by Army commanders, have a tendency to go awry, claiming that Marine commanders would magically be scores more successful.  You then cite Somalia as proof.

Let me be perfectly clear: I admire and respect ALL who serve. That means ALL. My criticism was aimed at top brass only and it was an opinion only.

O rly?  Then why would you say the operation was "not well executed?"  The "brass" aren't the ones who execute operations.

That being said, I will not express any further opinion on this subject. I think I have been VERY clear about my criticism and where it is aimed.

OK, but deserved criticism it is NOT.  Supporting such a position only lends itself to making it's proponent look like a bloody fool.

Quoted: Quoted: The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger.  It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed. Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them. Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.

Fucking horseshit.  

Yon knew that momentum, and taking the fight to the enemy, was HIS best chance for survival.  You are splitting hairs worried about whether he was merely defending his own life, or "fighting for our military."  

Just sitting back and snapping pictures could have turned out very badly for Yon.  

Quoted: I would like to add something here about the nature of laws, because when you read between the lines of this case it is apparent that this is not at all about whether reporters should pick up guns and aid wounded soldiers. One of the first things they teach you in law school is that no law can possibly be drafted which takes care of every eventuality, which is why reading the text of the law isn't always sufficient in reaching the correct decision.  For instance, take the example of trespassing laws.  If property is marked, you cannot enter onto their property.  However, if you saw your 3 year old child wandering on marked property, would it be trespassing to go and get your child?  The only sane answer is no, it would not be trespassing (or alternatively, that it was excusable trespassing).  Law is an expression of the intent of the body passing that law, and no sane person could possibly believe that when the trespassing law was written the legislature intended to prevent parents from rescuing their children.  But since it is impossible to write in every possible exception, most legislatures don't even try, but leave it to the court to interpret in light of reason and experience.  Any sane judge would find the parent not guilty of any crime because it is obvious that the law was not intended to be enforced in this manner. Same with the reporters and weapons rule.  The question I would ask is whether any of the other instances of reporters taking up weapons got the reporter in trouble.  I suspect the answer is no in most cases, because like other rules, "reporter's not being armed" is subject to the rule of reason, which says that in extreme cases the reporter should take up arms and fire back.  What is going on here, it appears, is that the brass is deliberately making an unreasonable interpretation of the law in order to punish someone they don't like for unrelated reasons.  Classic abuse of power.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger.  It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed. Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them. Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down. By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.

Dude, dont you know the bulk of Americans now have the soul of a slave

That whole " All that is needed for evil to triump is for good men to do nothing " well thats just outdated bullshit!

Also note, the same members screaming that he should have let our troopies die in the name of " journalism " will be the same ones screaming about the antiAmerican bias in the MSM

This man should be commended for his actions.  

One American Soldier is worth more than any terrorist or the perceived "neutral" status of a reporter.  War is hell.  The real question here is what POG position the men that froze up should be assigned to if in fact these men were combat ineffective.  I wasn't there and do not know the particulars of the situation, but that is unacceptable if true.  I'm Infantry and I will be deploying to the sandbox soon.  You don't leave your buddies to die.  I can't comment on what I would have actually done in the situation since I'm not there yet, so I'll reserve harsher judgment on these soldiers.  I know I couldn't live with myself if I froze up like that and had a reporter do my job.  I can see that there could be some political fallout from this, but only because some brass made it an issue.  If a reporter is assigned to my unit on missions, I would welcome this man to roll with us.  

All in all, I salute Michael Yon for his actions if what he wrote is true.  

Impartiality has nothing to do with the laws of war.  There were no impartial journalists in WWII.  The idea that a reporter covering his own countrymen at war should not show favor to one side or the other is a fairly recent one.

By picking up that rifle, Yon gave up his status as a non-combatant.  That status is purely academic, but regardless he was an unlawful combatant.  So?  Blackwater guys don't carry a Geneva ID card.  If Yon had been working for a security contractor and had intervened with his own weapon he still would have been considered an unlawful combatant.  Would he still have been in the wrong?  

And what does it matter?  Is he really endangering other journalists in theater?  Everybody on the ground knows the score.  Is he endangering other journalists as a whole?  I seriously doubt it-any enemy who might actually considering following the rules is not going to use Yon's actions as an excuse to break them.  Is he endangering public opinion of journalists or the military here or abroad?  I would think that certainly any Western audience, and more than likely any audience at all would understand Yon's actions.  Those who would condemn them would do so no matter what.  

Quoted: Yon does excellent work. Click on the link for "Gates of Fire" for the other story that nearly got him kicked out of Iraq. It boggles the mind that the army would want him kicked out.

They have lawyers in the Army nowadays, that's why.

First, Michael Yon is a former NCO in the Special Forces. So it is safe to surmise that he knows what he is doing.


Michael Yon has taken pictures while the unit he was attached to was under fire; taking pictures, not shooting a weapon back at the attackers.


So what is the difference between the aforementioned incident and the several others where he and his attached unit were under fire?

In the aforementioned incident he was the ONLY fully operational person against the insurgents. LTC Krilla was wounded and down, but still fighting Prussos (sp?) was also wounded and engaged in melee, and the other 2 soldiers had froze up and were not combat operational.

If and when  Ltc. Krilla went dry, then the insurgents would come after him next. They would not care that he is unarmed. He is an infidel and is to be killed without mercy, therefore his direct life was in danger. Anyone who thinks he would be spared better pull their head out of the clouds and go over to liveleak and watch a few of the beheading videos and get a fucking clue.

Furthermore he had a skill set which qualified him to make vital decisions as to how best to defend himself (I reiterate, he was former special forces).



There is no "protected status" in Iraq. Not even the Red Cross is left alone by the insurgents. How many reporters have been beheaded / killed so far?

The only person who would receive protected status would be Barbara Streissand.


The battle field is no place for people to get "touchy feely" and all "politically correct."

Quoted: Not that it is particularly well observed by the other side.  but while we are arresting and confining illegal combatants and having all sorts of political problems with it, tolerating illegal combatants in and around our forces is setting a precedent that we dont want to deal with. And once our non-combatants start taking active parts in hostilities, it makes all our other non-combatants fair game. That's probably the theory.  In practice, it is nice but since the other side doesn't observe it, in practical terms it is moot. HOWEVER, with all the anti-American politicoes all around the world, any opportunity for them to point out OUR violations of the rules of war in the world press is not helping our political war.

Maybe we shouldn't have non-combatants in the combat zone in the first place...

Yon's only mistake was that he wrote about what he did. He didn't ask permission to become involved so he shouldn't have said anything when he did.

Quoted: Yon's only mistake was that he wrote about what he did. He didn't ask permission to become involved so he shouldn't have said anything when he did.

Permission to defend his own life?  Or the life of others?  

It's like I'm living in Communist China--or some sick, weird, politically correct Bizzaro world.    

The fucking stupid asses running our military are more fucked up than a soup sandwich, on this, and many, many other things as well.  (Can you say Lt. Pantano?)

The politicians, including those in uniform, have made it a crime to actually kill the enemy, and it sickens me.  

I think we will be in trouble if we ever have to fight a real war again.  

Quoted: Yon's only mistake was that he wrote about what he did. He didn't ask permission to become involved so he shouldn't have said anything when he did.

Could you please clarify what "permission" he should of asked, when he should of asked for it, and how exactly he was or was not "involved" in the incident in question?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger.  It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed. Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them. Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down. I disagree, all the journalist that are there SHOULD be military only.  Just like in WWII.

First off nobody in the good old days, ever EVER, thought journalists were supposed to be impartial.  Journalists should be truthful, but that doesn't mean they have to be impartial.

And it is their right to pick up an M-16, and if that is in violation of their contract with the armed forces and the rules and laws of war, then they get to put up with the consequences.    I see a tendency here to say OUR illegal combatants are OK, ther illegal combatants are not.  It's OK for us to break the rules and laws of war, but it isn't OK for them to do it.

In case any of you might not have noticed it, this little skirmish has a lot more of a political content than almost any other war we have been in.  We have to deal with political consequences with our allies, other potential international supporters and non-supporters internationally and domestically.  People with stars on their collars, have to deal with the political ramifications.  Hence they set rules to control the political (or at least try to) climate they are dealing in.

If you can't figure that one out, go back to whining about political correctness, you just continue to broadcast your level of understanding.

In WW2 , the military had reporters (like those reporting for Stars and Stripes) and civilian News Agencies had reporters.  The military members wore the military uniform, the War Correspondents wore a US Civilians Uniform, or a War Correspondents uniform, most of the time and definitely at any time they might come in contact with enemy forces.  Why? To ensure (hopefully) that they will be treated as Geneva Convention treatment eligible persons in the combatant area if captured.

BTW - www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/PAGES/Appropriate%20Wear%20of%20the%20Uniforms.htm

“1.  When authorized by CMC, U.S. civilian technicians serving with the Marine Corps may wear the Marine Corps service and utility uniforms except that no distinctive grade, corps device, or other Navy or Marine Corps insignia will be worn.  Plain buttons of the approximate size and color of the buttons prescribed for the Marine Corps uniforms will be worn on all coats.



2.  The insignia as described below will be worn on these uniforms by civilian technicians:

    a.  Breast insignia will be worn on the left-breast pocket of all coats and khaki shirts.  The breast insignia will consist of an embroidered spread eagle facing dexter with a group of tools clutched in the left claw and an olive branch in the right claw.  The lettering "U.S. TECHNICIAN" and “U.S. CONTRACTOR” will be centered immediately below the eagle.  The insignia will be placed on a 3-1/4 -inch square background material of the same color as the coat or shirt, except on utility uniforms, which will utilize an olive drab fabric as background material for the emblem (for both combat and camouflage utilities, desert and woodland variations).  When requisitioned, the breast insignia patch will already include the olive drab background and should be sewn directly over the existing eagle, globe and anchor.  On the combat utility uniform, the insignia will be placed so that the eagle’s wings are parallel to the deck.

    b.  Cap insignia will be worn on the garrison cap.  The insignia shall be worn on the left side 2 inches from the front edge and 1-1/2 inches from the bottom edge.  The garrison cap insignia shall consist of a 5/8-inch by 3/4-inch gilt pin with the inscription "U.S. TECHNICIAN."  Government civilians/contractors employed by the Marine Corps will wear the combat garrison cap without the Marine Corps emblem.  One U.S. Technician pin-on collar insignia will be centered on the front center panel of the combat garrison cap, parallel to the deck.

    c.  Collar insignia will be worn on both sides of the collar of the khaki shirt and the utility coat, with the center of the insignia 1 inch from the front edge, and 1 inch from the upper edge of the collar.  The collar insignia is identical to the garrison cap insignia described above.

    d.  Service/Nametapes.  Government civilians/contractors employed by the Marine Corps will wear the service tapes, per paragraph 3033 of the Uniform Regulations, with the following text “U.S. Technician.”  Nametapes may be utilized per MARADMIN 285/03.”

and similar for other services.

In other words we hae certain rules and regulations we comply with, just because the bad guys don't do something or do do something is not a good reason for us to follow suit.

Who the hell thinks journalists are supposed to be impartial and why?  They are supposed to be accurate, and let the chips fall where they may.


Is the New York Times impartial?  Is the LA Times impartial? etc etc etc.

American first, everything else second. If you don't agree with this then find another country.

This guy did the right thing at the right time and possibly changed the outcome of the battle.

The enemy would have scored a major coup if the could have killed a BC and a CSM in a single engagement.

The Army should be giving this guy a medal.

What about the reporter in "We were Solders once and young"?

Quoted: What about the reporter in "We were Solders once and young"?

Joe Galloway

Quoted: Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense.  Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.

I agree. It was more of an act of self-defense than anything else.

Quoted: I dont' think our ROP'ers really give a shit about non-combatants, or any protected status they ought to have. As far as they're concern, and as far as bin ladens declaration of war, its against ALL infidels. So that our men/women in uniform, as well as you, your wife, family. I'm also at a loss for the Army, BUT I applaud this guy, in at least he knows what's more important to him. ...much better than other reporters, or the jane fonda's out there.

Triple Tap!

Quoted: Triple Tap!

Hey, be easy on him. He just forgot to switch from BURST on his mouse.

Quoted: Quoted: Triple Tap! Hey, be easy on him. He just forgot to switch from BURST on his mouse.

Ah ok! I only have the civilian version

Quoted: Fucking horseshit.   Yon knew that momentum, and taking the fight to the enemy, was HIS best chance for survival.  You are splitting hairs worried about whether he was merely defending his own life, or "fighting for our military."   Just sitting back and snapping pictures could have turned out very badly for Yon.

No, no. no.

Yon "knew" that he would be an unarmed civilan with a camera and his best chance for survival was not to be there in the first place. Again, he had no more right to take up arms against those asshat terrorists than you would if you hopped a flight to Iraq and started hunting insurgents.

Quoted: No, I formed an opion based on the words and deeds of others. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion.... all the fuck ups seem to occur where the Army is in charge. (Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, Somalia etc) I haven't seen the same fuck ups when the Corps is running the show. But thats just an opinion. Hey it's Friday, opinions are like assholes, I may be one and my opinion may be crap to you, no biggie.

Oh gawd, please im asking you to just click out of this thread, you realize the Army is a giant beast right?  You realize just about anything is pretty much going to be run by the Army...

and about somalia, the Rangers kicked some fucking ass, and stuck around not because they had to but because they would not leave their fallen comrades.   Those Rangers were put in a bad situation by politicians.

Research COL Danny McKnight, a true American Hero...

Tag for later

I bumped this because the following appeared on Jules Crittenden's (Boston Herald editor) blog today. He's a journalist who rode with the Army in the initial invasion, and is basically doing a "5 Year Anniversery" thing each day of what was going on.

This is part of todays, as the unit he's with is about to attack the bridge over the Euphrates at al-Hindiyah:
www.julescrittenden.com/2007/03/29/march-29-2003/

Early that evening, when it was dark enough that we had to use a shielded red light, [Capt.] Wolford called his lieutenants and platoon sergeants together around a map spread across the hood of his Humvee, to brief them on the plan to attack the Euphrates bridgehead town of al-Hindiyah at dawn on the 31st. Our company would punch through town to the bridge. While the rest of the battalion held the town on the west side of the river behind us, the 14 Assassin tanks and our fire-support Bradley would cross to the east side. The strength of defenses around the town and the bridge was not known. A couple of Iraqi bases were located within 10 miles or so, at al-Hillah to the east and Karbala to the northwest. Strength of Iraqi forces there was also not known. Our job was to lure them out. We were the bait. “The point is we’re trying to draw the Republican Guard into a fight. We’re trying to draw some of their forces out of Karbala and get them into the open where we can kill them,” Wolford said. Once on the other side of the bridge, Wolford said, we should be prepared to stay buttoned down in our vehicles and under direct fire for 24 hours. That meant having enough food and water inside, all the ammo we’d need, and plenty of piss bottles. ................. Someone asked what the plan was if the Iraqis blew the bridge behind us. “The nearest friendlies on the east side of the river are 30 miles south, and we’ll have to make a run for them,” Wolford said. I am pretty sure everyone else quietly gulped at that point, just like I did. Wolford didn’t seem to like it much, either. We knew by now that there had been heavy fighting, and people had been killed or captured. As the meeting broke up, I told Wolford I thought this might be a good time to get a rundown on the particulars of the M4 rifle. Wolford said he thought that was a good idea, have the sergeant in my vehicle see to it. He wondered out loud whether there might be an extra 9 mil around that I could have. There wasn’t, but that was OK. There were four rifles in the Bradley, and if it turned out I needed one, that would mean someone else didn’t need his anymore.

BTT