Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Comments

19 comments

Date Votes
  • p3skyking
    Anything that comes out of UC Berkley is suspect.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
    Anything that comes out of UC Berkley is suspect.

    +1

    I will agree that there are some who won't pull the trigger. I have seen it and those individuals are quickly gotten off the front lines where they are endangering others that are doing thier jobs.

    But the numbers of those that will not do it are relitvely small as I can only remember 2 people being gotten out of the area for this type of thing.
    0
  • Da-Tank
    As most soldiers know thats a lie. I'd say only about 20% or less would not fire their weapons. Even then when their friends got hurt most of them would get mad and fight back. Kill or be killed is one of the bigger issues here then any other. I think this study is supect and slanted.
    I'd like to be the first to call BS.
    0
  • rider
    Even the title is an insult to the men and women who have died in the defense of our country.....[:(!][:(!] This is Liberal BS. [xx(][xx(]

    rider
    0
  • HandLoad
    I was never a "soldier Forward", but there is a strong odor of mendacity surrounding this purported reportage.
    0
  • COLT
    ..A BIG BS! The survival instinct is one, if not the strongest instincts we posess. One also learns you do not have to "hate" another person to take their life. One can also become amazed at just how ruthless, numb, dissconnected one can become when overcome by adrenlin. The report is tripe...[;)]

    ani-texas-flag-1.gif
    0
  • Nighthawk
    Sounds like their trying to take away the bravery of our troops! BS
    0
  • KSUmarksman
    could the WWII statistic be partially attributed to training?

    I've read that once soldiers were in their units the NCOs had to re-train them to knock the "aimed shots at a definite target" foolishness out of them and teach them fire and maneuver
    0
  • steve45
    Just wanted to say Ive read Gwynne Dyers book titled WAR and it is good. Its a study of war from the beginning to today.
    0
  • Joe Drees
    True story. Some of my fellow seabees last year are repairing a huge crater in a concrete road left by an IED. After several hours hauling 100 pound sacks of concrete they come under sniper fire. They immediately start running to the direction of fire to take out the sniper. Their USMC security detail orders them to take cover and tells them they will get the sniper(they did). Now the sight of a bunch of reserve seabees in thier 40s running to get a sniper might have been hilarious to the marines present (probably the sniper, too), but that tells an awful lot about the spirit of the guys over there.
    0
  • whiteclouder
    Watch the Burn's documentary on WWII. Won't shoot? Bull Pucky.

    Clouder..
    0
  • AZEX
    I've read this guy's hippie BS book and that's exactly what it is.

    D.
    0
  • BarkingDog
    berkely.edu ? well that gives you the first clue. second clue is "hope on the battlefield". the author implies there is "hope" in the fact that americans are reluctant to kill on the battlefield.
    screw this guy and his american hating, defeatists liberal crap.
    0
  • nord
    Perhaps our Berkeley boy might wish to view a few unedited clips of battle. I'd say any reluctance to return deadly fire largely vanishes about the time one comes under such.

    Theory is fine. It likely stands up for about as long as it takes to be in a firefight for a few seconds. Then one might expect the most basic of instincts to take over.

    Detached and impersonal is the flyboy with a 20 mile standoff weapon. He doesn't often see his enemy, nor does he witness the devastation wrought by his weapons... Other than from a distance.

    Up close and very personal is the grunt dealing with a live grenade tossed from a few feet away. I'd guess he'd be inclined to interact with the enemy on a VERY personal level.

    For our friends in Berkeley this translates into deadly retaliation. For those in Berkeley who still don't get the concept... Does ONE DEAD TOWELHEAD come closer to a description you might grasp?

    Sadly, I didn't think so.
    0
  • chollagardens
    Premise is false. Even if they polled just medics and included conscientious objectors during the draft they couldn't get any where near those numbers.
    0
  • v35
    I don't buy it though though there may be some truth to it for National Guard or Enlisted Reservests for their first six months in the slime (used a different word) .
    0
  • Fatstrat
    I hate to say this as the kid obviously deserves our respect. But one of my wifes family members is married to a Marine who has everyone in our family baffled.
    Nice kid. Very serious "by the book" type who will likely become a police officer when he gets out.
    But he's also a whimp. I offered to take him shooting to get him out of the house when he was visting here on leave. Said he didn't like guns because they "hurt his shoulder".
    My USMC Korean War vet (Chosin Reservior) dad had me shooting a M-1 Garand, 98K and 12 ga. by age 8.
    0
  • joeaf1911a1
    Never read so much B.S. in my life with such lieing figures. I was in several campaigns in ETO from France to wars end as a Infantry rifleman.
    True, some replacements were hesitant to fire (few though) in their first major firefight. And no, we did not require or get additional
    training from NCO's as far as using our weapons against people. Many,
    like myself already had relitives (my dad) shipped home with bad wounds
    or KIA and were kinda "evening the score" so to speak. Wonder who he talked to for this figure, cooks or Quartermasters
    0
  • dheffley
    I have yet to see someone complete USMC basic training and be reluctant to shoot anyone or anything, especially when ordered to do so.

    Berkley sucks, Berkley lies, and when they're caught, Berkley cries.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity