Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP General > Ask Each Other
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-27-2019, 07:02 PM
leeshall leeshall is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20
Default

The Captain was an armed combatant and therefore fair game for any opposing soldier. The coward Corporal Upham shot an unarmed soldier that had surrendered --- that's murder.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:05 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeshall View Post
The Captain was an armed combatant and therefore fair game for any opposing soldier. The coward Corporal Upham shot an unarmed soldier that had surrendered --- that's murder.
It's not murder. It's a movie!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:17 PM
leeshall leeshall is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20
Default

I know it's a movie. My problem was with the audience cheering and applauding the coward Corporal Upham's murder of a prisoner of war.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:35 PM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeshall View Post
I know it's a movie. My problem was with the audience cheering and applauding the coward Corporal Upham's murder of a prisoner of war.
The audience was simply cheering that the bad guy got offed in a Hollywood flick. They weren't making any moral judgement - it was all make believe and I think most knew it.

I thought the movie had some good scenes but overall it was pretty lame. As has already been noted, I can't imagine members of a Ranger unit operating behind enemy lines engaging in an argument over the wisdom of the mission. More Hollywood nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-27-2019, 08:43 PM
epm729 epm729 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Highland, New York
Posts: 2,017
Default

I would say there is a difference between a coward and a soldier that is frozen by fear in his first contact with the enemy. He did not run he stayed despite his fear.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-28-2019, 12:55 PM
dman514 dman514 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 80
Default

I love the movie except for them charging the machine gun nest. They had a sniper. He could have took out two of the three before the third ever figured out what was going on. From there the sniper could cover the machine gun while the others advanced. It made no sense to charge it the way they did.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:34 AM
pmclaine pmclaine is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeshall View Post
The Captain was an armed combatant and therefore fair game for any opposing soldier. The coward Corporal Upham shot an unarmed soldier that had surrendered --- that's murder.
You of course are right but your opinion comes from the nice warm cozy peaceful perspective of talking about a movie on an internet website.

War is not a joke and WWII was the last time the US approached war with a seriousness we seem to have lost.

Curtis LeMay understood war.

If we had some LeMay in our present military we would not be going 18 years on in a constant state of war.

Anyway in the fictional crime that was observed understand there was a special consideration for soldiers in the SS.

Right or wrong is a very blurred line in war because truthfully war is so wrong in the first place.

Something to ponder and than you can condemn....

https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dacha...ersKilled.html

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:30 AM
Strick Strick is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmclaine View Post
You of course are right but your opinion comes from the nice warm cozy peaceful perspective of talking about a movie on an internet website.

War is not a joke and WWII was the last time the US approached war with a seriousness we seem to have lost.

Curtis LeMay understood war.

If we had some LeMay in our present military we would not be going 18 years on in a constant state of war.

Anyway in the fictional crime that was observed understand there was a special consideration for soldiers in the SS.

Right or wrong is a very blurred line in war because truthfully war is so wrong in the first place.

Something to ponder and than you can condemn....

https://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dacha...ersKilled.html

There were many on the other side of the fence as well. The Malmedy massacre is but one where the SS murdered many US soldiers. Many of our allies were murdered in other events as well such as the different Wehermach massacres...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:06 AM
pmclaine pmclaine is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strick View Post
There were many on the other side of the fence as well. The Malmedy massacre is but one where the SS murdered many US soldiers. Many of our allies were murdered in other events as well such as the different Wehermach massacres...
War is the failure of all other options and should only be conducted if an existential threat to your way of life than fought with such ferocity that it is over quickly so as to limit the suffering to all involved.

Its goals should be clearly defined.

WWII was the last war with a clear strategic goal - the destruction of the enemy combatant forces. Eisenhower cared little for Berlin because there were larger German forces to destroy elsewhere.

What is a War on Terror?

We won WWII so we write the history.

War in itself is an atrocity and atrocities happen in war.

Abuse of non combatants at a tactical level is hard to justify. At the strategic level its part of "wearing down your enemies will to fight".

Once in uniform actions between combatants depend on circumstances.

Pieper was sent on a mission that if it failed meant the almost certain end of Germany. From that perspective Malmedy becomes something necessary to increase the odds of his mission success. Of course to us its an atrocity.

Should the SEALs in Lone Survivor made different decisions when they let the sheep herders go? What would the families of the SEALs killed in the rapid reaction helo say to that?

What about the two cases currently being adjudicated involving two highly experienced spec ops types?

Im not preaching, and Im not proposing a clear cut answer.

Ive not been in war.

I am interested though because I think I some what have an appreciation of how atrocious war is and its horrible nature requires understanding what occurs there from the mindset of the involved combatant.

Our leaders dont seem to have that appreciation, war still being a sport.

I also caution regards a black and white judgement because my heros are the men that fight our wars and you dont need to read much history to know our soldiers did things as had to be done in the moment went survival was all that mattered.

Thankfully unlike our WWII enemies those decisions were a matter of duress not national policy.

I find it hard to fault an insane decision of the moment in insane conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:52 AM
Booga Booga is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leeshall View Post
The Captain was an armed combatant and therefore fair game for any opposing soldier. The coward Corporal Upham shot an unarmed soldier that had surrendered --- that's murder.

Have you ever saw active combat, such as what was being depicted in Saving Private Ryan?

Last edited by Booga; 05-30-2019 at 08:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.