Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

American Sniper - Roadkill scene

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:50:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

All's fair in love and war.

If they stopped the outcome would probably be no different, and there would be even more local death wishes surrounding them.

My better half saw the same thing happen on a Cairo street courtesy of the Egyptian army, they didn't care to stop either.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:17:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

If you recall the cartoon Mr. Peabody even they had a street sweeper at the end of the parade.

You don't stop the convoy, but a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It has to be put into context to really make the right decision. I didn't see it, but from what you describe there was no current threat.

This is the stuff politicians need to consider before they pull the trigger and get us in to wars. In retrospect, Iraq got us very little and we paid a huge cost in terms of monetary to the mental and physical health of those who served.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:28:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:17:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

You don't stop the convoy, but a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It has to be put into context to really make the right decision. I didn't see it, but from what you describe there was no current threat.

1) The context was men sitting inside the APC noting that they hit a bump without seeing what they ran over. Assumption was "roadkill".
2) I fully disagree that a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It's easily plausible that that was the intention all along, to get the convoy to stop so that it would make an easier target. By implementing your suggestion into US military procedure, you give anyone wanting to shoot at stationary US targets (or to get them to stop right on top an IED) massive targets of opportunity.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:41:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:28:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:17:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

You don't stop the convoy, but a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It has to be put into context to really make the right decision. I didn't see it, but from what you describe there was no current threat.

1) The context was men sitting inside the APC noting that they hit a bump without seeing what they ran over. Assumption was "roadkill".
2) I fully disagree that a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It's easily plausible that that was the intention all along, to get the convoy to stop so that it would make an easier target. By implementing your suggestion into US military procedure, you give anyone wanting to shoot at stationary US targets (or to get them to stop right on top an IED) massive targets of opportunity.

I agree to an extent thus why the context of the over all situation. If they are on the road that was continuously attacked and planned with IED's, you can't stop for anything. I'm just saying that I don't think it should be a universal policy in every war time situations because there are probably other cases where the risk is not as great. Again I would never stop the entire convoy. There would be a team dedicated to that just like there is a team dedicated to retrieving our own dead.

We have rules to engagement that intentionally put our soldiers and military personnel in risk in order to uphold certain moral standards. If we didn't, we would not put boots on the ground and just carpet bomb the hell out of an area and be done with it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:44:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:28:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:17:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

You don't stop the convoy, but a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It has to be put into context to really make the right decision. I didn't see it, but from what you describe there was no current threat.

1) The context was men sitting inside the APC noting that they hit a bump without seeing what they ran over. Assumption was "roadkill".
2) I fully disagree that a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It's easily plausible that that was the intention all along, to get the convoy to stop so that it would make an easier target. By implementing your suggestion into US military procedure, you give anyone wanting to shoot at stationary US targets (or to get them to stop right on top an IED) massive targets of opportunity.

Let me put it this way...I don't think any unit should stop or divert from their mission unless there is a viable military justification for such a deviance. Avoiding running over a civilian, tragic and as seemingly preventable as it would be, does not fit that criteria.

Any deviance, let's say the lead unit in a convoy pausing while the rest of the convoy goes around, could very, very easily play into the hands of guerrilla fighters, oh I mean terrorists. It would be even more problematic still if there was no way for the convoy to go around, say in a narrow street. The only choice would then be to simply run over the civilian or risk the deaths of everyone in your own unit.

You may say "unlikely", but this is a clear instance where when presented with a procedural loophole/weak link in the chain, an enemy can and will exploit it to no end.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:37:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:41:09 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:28:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:17:11 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 1/23/2015 3:29:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
(** warning, spoilers **)

There is a very short scene barely 5 seconds long embedded into this movie that no one has yet to discuss:

While being transported in a convoy, Chris Kyle's APC hits a bump...one of the troops looks around, snickers, and says "roadkill". The rest of the troops barely pay attention and then go about discussing their personal lives.

That "roadkill" was more than likely an Iraqi civilian that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got in front of a moving convoy. We don't stop a military convoy just so that Iraqi children can safely cross the street...there are no "25mph zones" in a war zone.

What is the morality of such an act? Do you really want to stop a military convoy for humanitarian concerns? Do you really want to make that convoy a sitting duck for an ambush?

Discuss.

You don't stop the convoy, but a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It has to be put into context to really make the right decision. I didn't see it, but from what you describe there was no current threat.

1) The context was men sitting inside the APC noting that they hit a bump without seeing what they ran over. Assumption was "roadkill".
2) I fully disagree that a unit should stop unless directly under fire. It's easily plausible that that was the intention all along, to get the convoy to stop so that it would make an easier target. By implementing your suggestion into US military procedure, you give anyone wanting to shoot at stationary US targets (or to get them to stop right on top an IED) massive targets of opportunity.

I agree to an extent thus why the context of the over all situation. If they are on the road that was continuously attacked and planned with IED's, you can't stop for anything. I'm just saying that I don't think it should be a universal policy in every war time situations because there are probably other cases where the risk is not as great. Again I would never stop the entire convoy. There would be a team dedicated to that just like there is a team dedicated to retrieving our own dead.

I understand what you're saying, and you're differentiating a secured area from an unsecured area. Yes, in secured areas, military vehicles are going to follow all the rules of traffic and get handed speeding tickets like everyone else, and so we can stop for Iraqi kids crossing the street...but in unsecured areas, all bets are off. EVERY INCH of that area is a potential ambush point, indeed every second that convoy spends in an unsecured area is time spent in hostile territory. There's no reason for that convoy to stop for Iraqis that happen to be in the way...there's no reason for that convoy to stop for any reason other than reaching its destination.

We have rules to engagement that intentionally put our soldiers and military personnel in risk in order to uphold certain moral standards. If we didn't, we would not put boots on the ground and just carpet bomb the hell out of an area and be done with it.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?