On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

'Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell'

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), a former Army lieutenant colonel says...

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here


Mary De Voe said...

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”
I was hoping someone with a brain would comment. My own feeling is that the Taliban does not deserve any consideration including getting urinated over.

RichardL said...

Where do I donate to his next campaign? This man makes SENSE.

Anthony S. Layne said...

I'll definitely agree that people who have never been in combat don't have the frame of reference for properly judging those who have, or how modern warfare degrades one's humanity and moral sanity. Rep. West's response makes sense.

As to what the Taliban deserve, I tend to follow Shakespeare on the matter: "Use each man after his deserts, and who shall 'scape a whipping?" If the Taliban don't "deserve" enough consideration for us to respect their bodies in death, then the more merit it is to us that we give them that respect.

Anonymous said...

Judgements of good or evil, and their degrees of each are cleary dependant upon the circumstances. So says the catechism somewhere. So nobody can judge homosexual relations except those who have same sex attraction.

Anthony S. Layne said...

@ Anonymous 9:15 AM: A little off-topic, don't you think? Or perhaps you're trying to make a different point? The question is not whether disrespecting the bodies of the Taliban fighters is wrong (it is), but the degree to which we can attach culpability to the Marines. How responsible were they really?

But the Catechism which you've tried to drag into the mess also makes it clear, at paragraphs 1755-1756, that some acts are intrinsically evil. In paragraph 2357, same-sex attraction is called "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to natural law". So invoking the "somewhere in Catechism" fuzziness is no help to your point: if you're gonna cherry-pick, you'll have to do better than that.

Anonymous said...

My intention was to be sarcastic. The idea that war is awful, therefore we should make excuses for immoral acts is stupid. If war is hell, and sin necessarily follows then everyone of us should be nigh to a pacifist. If rep west really meant this, then he would be trying his darndest to get us out of these unjust wars as soon as possible.


Sarcasm when mixed with liberal BS warms no ones heart, but becomes a mere sounding gong for self aggrandizement.

Sarcasm from a Catholic perspective accepts the truth of reality recognizing that this world is full of evil, and yet there can be joy in the pissing on the head of an evil enemy, as there was in shooting that enemy in the head minutes before.

Truth, is the bloody scourging of Jesus Christ, or pissing on a dead Taliban head following a deadly battle of which we have assign our very men the duty to fight in war.

Jesus took the duty to save our souls by accepting the bloody scourging. Without that acceptance you and I would not have such a chance for the vision of God. Complaining about the bloody scourging has nothing to do about saving your already damned soul.

These men took the duty to save YOUR country. But you would rather piss away their honor of duty with the sarcastic evil of your tongue.

If you don’t like YOUR country, then…

1. Those who pray that war ends are hopeful of God's mercy.
2. Those who punish those who are sent to fight in battle are in need of God's mercy of the evil that exist in their very soul.
3. Those who demand instant judgment of truth see themselves as if they were god.

Pathetic sarcasm from a liberal catholic is merely non truth.

Or the please remove the log in you eye, before you remove the splinter in those you condemn.

Anonymous said...

Well we either have to support our troops in everything, or hate every good thing that ever was. Clearly these are the alternatives of the devil....either rule the world or have nothing. I tend to think that just because soldiers do many good things doesnt mean they cant commit crimes.

And if we say they arent culpable, i mean, really? Are we sending in children below the age of reason to fight?

Anthony S. Layne said...

Note that I said, "the degree to which we can attach culpability". One of the tragedies of war is that it depends so much on turning the moral order upside down, which inevitably takes a toll on the people caught up in it. Many people, especially infantry, do things in war they'd never do in peace, and often get rewarded for them because they help to secure valid military objectives. International laws and treaties such as the Geneva Convention do what they can to keep some semblance of sanity and morality in war, but it's little enough. It's very difficult to keep your sanity in "the greatest enterprise ever devised to separate a man's brains from his buns". That's why we need compassion not only for the dead, but for the living. It doesn't require condoning everything soldiers do; it just requires that we be not too hasty or heavy-handed with our condemnations.

Anonymous said...

Anthony, thats fine and seems balanced. Undoubtedly, servicemen are under a great deal of stress, which probably limits culpability. Nevertheless, the degree to which this lessening occurs cannot be ascertained in this life...and is not the task of civil society to try to discern. We dont let people serve reduced prison terms because they grew up in a crumby home. Legitimate authority can only come up with penal laws and then enforce them in such a way that approximates justice. This is never perfect, but human justice in conformity with the eternal law is as good as can be hoped for.

In this case, clearly not only was an evil perpetrated, but has also caused the sin of scandal. I dont know what is the current penalty, but it seems a dihonorable discharge ought to be on the table.....for these men and their superiors.

Disrespecting the dead has no place in civilized society, and neither does its toleration.

Anonymous said...

CMR seems to have a pretty fair contingent of "eye for an eye" Old Testament Jews posting here. "Joy in shooting the enemy in the head"?? So war atrocities CAN be excused because, well, war is hell? Was that from Augustine?? "Shut your mouth" unless you have been in combat and have a "frame of reference" that excuses urinating on corpses and hating your enemies?? This thread is scary sickening with war/military worship.

Sophia's Favorite said...

Most recent anonymous, the only atrocity committed was the desecration of the corpses. Their deaths came in battle, and yes, the killing of a deadly opponent is a justified occasion for elation—although, based on my experience of much lesser forms of stress, I'd guess the biggest component of the elation in battle is relief at having survived.

Even so, though, just as anger exists for a purpose—to make one able to fight one's enemies in a just cause—so too, does the satisfaction in defeating them. It is not immoral to be pleased that one's enemies are dead, if that is the only practicable way of defeating them.

They're being punished, and nobody has said they shouldn't be. The Lt. Colonel's point is that, justice having been done, the sole purpose served by further indignation is the self-aggrandizement of people who have the advantage of living in peaceful circumstances.

Sophia's Favorite said...

To clarify, the "they" in my last paragraph refers to the Marines who desecrated the corpses, not to the defeated enemies (who had been the "they" in all the previous remarks).

Popular Posts