If you were a soldier during the Vietnam War, would you be more likely to follow Sgt Barnes, or Sgt Ellias? Explain you answer. Also, do you feel that Charlie Sheens character was justified in "Fraggin" (killing) Sgt Barnes? Explain your answer.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he seemed like a more fair and just leader then Sgt. Barns. While acting intelligent and adjusting to the situation calmly. Also I think that Charlie Sheens had no right to kill Sgt. Barns. Charlie committed murder which in this case is even worse because Sgt. Barns was unarmed at the time.Despite the fact that Sgt. Barns was a cruel person.
Sgt. Ellis would be a much better person to follow because he was not so cruel and obsessed with power as Sgt. Burns. It seemed that Burns would stop at nothing to take down anyone felt differently or would not do everthing that he had ordered. Oppose Burns, and fight to keep your life. The man was ruthless and cruel his men and the women and children of Vietnam. Though aggression may be helpful in war, pure blood lust and senseless killing achieves nothing, and acts like that certainly did not help for the men when the arrived back home after the war. I am currently udecided on whether or not it was right for Charlie Sheen's character to kill Sgt. Burns. True, Burns was a horrible man, however I am not sure it is right that a man should take another's life. A factor to think about is revenge. Sheen's character was enraged at the Burns for killing Ellias and attempting to kill him the night before.Also, as T. said, Sgt. Burns was unarmed, hardly a fair-fight.
A rift forms between Barnes and Elias, after Barnes’ continuous lack of leadership in the squad. This causes two factions to form in the platoon. I would side with Sgt. Elias, because he doesn’t just go with the motions and protocol of war, like Sgt. Barnes. Elias is a natural leader and does what is right, like when he steps up in the Vietnamese town and stops the soldiers from abusing their power on the unarmed people. He is a person of quality and integrity, and makes his opinions known. He is the only person brave enough to finally “put Barnes in his place.”
And yes, Charlie Sheen had every right to kill Barnes, even if it is considered illegal. His vengeful actions can be thought of as “an eye for an eye” murder and justified for Elias’ honor. The normal laws and rules that we, as U.S. citizens are familiar with, do not apply to a war setting. Barnes shot Elias off guard, and in a cowardice way, so Charlie’s method of execution on Barnes was exactly what he did to Elias. The night of the last ambush, Barnes was about to KILL Charlie Sheen with a shovel, but then the napalm was dropped, and they both fell unconscious. He has every right to avenge a dear friend and comrade, along with the murder of Barnes. I’m sure that Barnes would keep trying to “silence” Charlie’s objections to his commanding methods.
If I were a soldier in the Vietnam War, I would most likely side with Elias. Elias is just, fair, compassionate, and maintains his humanity during a period of great depression, fear, and death. Barnes, however, is harsh and will do anything possible to feed his own ego, even it if means killing an innocent person. For example, Barnes murdered an elderly woman in a nearby village, taking advantage of his power and the defenselessness of the Vietnamese. Elias, who arrived after the scene, was mortified by his conduct and ended up getting into a fistfight with him. Elias can decipher between what is morally right and wrong, whereas Barnes cannot. Therefore, I would rather follow Elias, who would not stab me in the back. Chris Taylor was also justified in killing Elias. Barnes maliciously murdered both the old lady and Elias, and attempted to kill Taylor with a shovel. Taylor was serving as retribution for the unjust crimes Barnes committed while active.
In that position I would choose to follow Sgt. Ellias. Barns had a much more cruel personality with very little emotion towards others, and that's not the sort of person I'd want to follow. Ellias on the other hand was smart and strategic in battle while remaining kind. I'd say that Charlie Sheen's character was justified in killing Barns. Barns had tried to kill Ellias and indirectly led to his death which gave Charlie Sheen's character a strong reason to seek revenge. So regardless of whether or not Barns was armed, he had killed an ally also.
If i would have to choose a side I would have to go with Sgt. Ellis, becaus he believes in fighting the war not the people. Even if Barns is a better leader Ellis is a better person. I believe Charlie Sheen was right in killing barns. Barns told him to do and was all around not a sound person or right.
I would follow Ellis since hge is a fair and just soldier that would give me a good chance of surviving. Barnes on the other hand would give me a great chance at surviving but at great cost of guilt. I also think that Charlie Sheens character was just in fragging Barnes since Barnes killed Sheen's friend and and would never feel the effects of the justice system due to his record in the service.
i hope i would side with Sgt. Ellis but when your actualy there the question becomes a whole of a lot harder. One might just side with the biggest badest dog which was barnes, your morality becomes twisted when your doing whatever you can to just make it back home alive. Right now sitting in my comfy computer chair i would defonatly choose Ellis but if i was there, im not going to lie, my morals might change.
I know it would be nice to say that I would be the good guy and follow Sgt. Ellias example, but i have to agree with ben that maybe the actual experience of war would change my morals. I deffinetly do not approve of killing innocent people, but in war I have a feeling that maybe when i realized that I was actually fighting for my life, I might have to do some inhumane things just to see another day, which is why i can't entirely say i'd follow Sgt. Ellias' example. But for the most part i would follow Sgt. Ellias' example because as history has shown, killing and violence (especially of innocent people) has never solved anything. And as far as Charlie Sheens character killing Sgt. Barnes, the movie does make it seem as if it was the right justifiable thing to do, but when it comes down to it killing sgt. barnes only brings charlie sheens character down to barnes' level, so i don't think that sgt. barnes being killed was justifiable
I would fallow sgt. Ellis becuase he seemed to be a lot more fair than barns. He also had better strdgeties and may have had a little more care foe his troops than Barns had. I think that Charlie killing Barns was the right thing to do. It may be concidered to be wrong because there was no real reason to. However I think that it was one of those difficult tasks that justhad to be done. It showed great leadership and mental power that Charlie was able to kill him.
-apparently i already made a google account and i dont know what my user name is or my password so i will be posting as mike for this entry. i would follow Sgt. Barnes. he may be cruel be he does what is best in his mind for his troops. if barnes would not have given those orders to burn down the village those vietnamese may have supplied the north with weapons. that is a risk not worth takeing. Sgt. ellis thinks with his heart while Barnes thinks with his head. the ideal soldier is not some one who cares about feelings it is someone who will take names with a grin on his face.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis becuase he cares about his men more than Sgt. Burns. Burns is crazy and just wants to kill the vietnamese, he doesnt care who he kills as long as the mission gets done.
I also agree with connor and ben, because i would like to follow the good soldier and stick with Ellias, but at teh same time i would rather go along with sgt barnes because he has more experience. I Think charlie feels he did the right thing at the time, he killed a bad person but a good leader.
i have never founght in a war,maybe if i did i would change my mind. but i would follow sgt. ellias because he did what he had to do. i know it was wrong of him to follow though with it and it was hard because he wasn't just killing anyone he was killing an american who was a very intelligent man with years of experience, im glad i will never probably have to be in that situation.
I would follow Sgt. Ellias. He was way more just than Barnes. Sgt. Barnes was a jerk and treated everyone around him very poorly. Even in spite of his attitude problem, Charlie Sheen had no right to frag him. Murding the enemy is expected and it's how we win wars, but killing our own only ends up hurting us in the end. Barnes was a very good soldier even though he was a jerk.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis. He seemed to have more of a grip on reality. then Sgt. Barns. I would trust Ellis to make better decisions then Barns That would keep me alive longer. I think that there was so much anger within Charlie for Ellis murder that he finally killed barns. it seemed just to him at the time. I dont know if i would be able to kill one of my own fellow soldiers though no matter what bad things he did more bloodshed wasnt needed.
I would be more likely to follow Sgt. Ellias because I think he was a better leader than Sgt. Barnes. Barnes was very obviously corrupt and handled situations in a violent, even cruel, way and I don't know that I would be able to do that.
Yes, I think Charlie Sheen's character was justified in killing Sgt Barnes. Barnes was an immoral leader and often ended up in dangerous situations. He made the war very difficult for many of the soldiers and he and Sgt. Ellias disagreed so often that with Barnes gone, it was much easier for the soldiers to follow one leader and one set of orders.
If i were a soldier during the vietnam War i would follow Sgt. Ellias. i would follow him because he would of made the situation of me being there easier because he is a better leader. I believe that Charlie Sheens should not of killed Sgt Barnes because it was murder and he had no right to kill him. It was unnecessary and he should not of killed him
I would follow Sgt ellis because i feel that he is a more just and fair leader. He shows more of the chacteristics of a leader and demands respect from his men, unlike Sgt barnes however he does not abuse his power and puts his men before himself. I think that charlie's character was justified in killing Barnes because he was avenging the death of ellis. By our standards it might be considered murder but in the situation that occured i believe it was a justfird killing
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he came off to me as a leader with much more just and upright motives than Sgt. Barnes. He went into the war with more than just a hunger to kill, and more consideration and humane feeling toward the people of Vietnam and his own soldiers. Charlie may have had a right according to his morals, and I'm sure many others would have-and had-assumed the same rights, but I would like to hope that human nature is not quite so cruel. In my opinion, in Charlie's situation, though I would like to think I wouldn't do so myself, he had a right to kill Sgt. Barnes.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he seemed like a more fair leader then Sgt. Barns. While acting intelligent and adjusting to the situation. I think that Charlie Sheens had no right too kill Sgt.Barns. Charlie committed murder which is even worse because sgt. barns was unarmed at the time. Beside that Sgt. barns was a mean person.
I would falow sgt Barns becouse he is more cutthrote and is the kind of man needed for this type of war if he thinls there bad he kills them and so would i. he would keep me alive so i would fallow him!
23 comments:
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he seemed like a more fair and just leader then Sgt. Barns. While acting intelligent and adjusting to the situation calmly. Also I think that Charlie Sheens had no right to kill Sgt. Barns. Charlie committed murder which in this case is even worse because Sgt. Barns was unarmed at the time.Despite the fact that Sgt. Barns was a cruel person.
Sgt. Ellis would be a much better person to follow because he was not so cruel and obsessed with power as Sgt. Burns. It seemed that Burns would stop at nothing to take down anyone felt differently or would not do everthing that he had ordered. Oppose Burns, and fight to keep your life. The man was ruthless and cruel his men and the women and children of Vietnam. Though aggression may be helpful in war, pure blood lust and senseless killing achieves nothing, and acts like that certainly did not help for the men when the arrived back home after the war.
I am currently udecided on whether or not it was right for Charlie Sheen's character to kill Sgt. Burns. True, Burns was a horrible man, however I am not sure it is right that a man should take another's life. A factor to think about is revenge. Sheen's character was enraged at the Burns for killing Ellias and attempting to kill him the night before.Also, as T. said, Sgt. Burns was unarmed, hardly a fair-fight.
A rift forms between Barnes and Elias, after Barnes’ continuous lack of leadership in the squad. This causes two factions to form in the platoon. I would side with Sgt. Elias, because he doesn’t just go with the motions and protocol of war, like Sgt. Barnes. Elias is a natural leader and does what is right, like when he steps up in the Vietnamese town and stops the soldiers from abusing their power on the unarmed people. He is a person of quality and integrity, and makes his opinions known. He is the only person brave enough to finally “put Barnes in his place.”
And yes, Charlie Sheen had every right to kill Barnes, even if it is considered illegal. His vengeful actions can be thought of as “an eye for an eye” murder and justified for Elias’ honor. The normal laws and rules that we, as U.S. citizens are familiar with, do not apply to a war setting. Barnes shot Elias off guard, and in a cowardice way, so Charlie’s method of execution on Barnes was exactly what he did to Elias. The night of the last ambush, Barnes was about to KILL Charlie Sheen with a shovel, but then the napalm was dropped, and they both fell unconscious. He has every right to avenge a dear friend and comrade, along with the murder of Barnes. I’m sure that Barnes would keep trying to “silence” Charlie’s objections to his commanding methods.
If I were a soldier in the Vietnam War, I would most likely side with Elias. Elias is just, fair, compassionate, and maintains his humanity during a period of great depression, fear, and death. Barnes, however, is harsh and will do anything possible to feed his own ego, even it if means killing an innocent person. For example, Barnes murdered an elderly woman in a nearby village, taking advantage of his power and the defenselessness of the Vietnamese. Elias, who arrived after the scene, was mortified by his conduct and ended up getting into a fistfight with him. Elias can decipher between what is morally right and wrong, whereas Barnes cannot. Therefore, I would rather follow Elias, who would not stab me in the back. Chris Taylor was also justified in killing Elias. Barnes maliciously murdered both the old lady and Elias, and attempted to kill Taylor with a shovel. Taylor was serving as retribution for the unjust crimes Barnes committed while active.
In that position I would choose to follow Sgt. Ellias. Barns had a much more cruel personality with very little emotion towards others, and that's not the sort of person I'd want to follow. Ellias on the other hand was smart and strategic in battle while remaining kind.
I'd say that Charlie Sheen's character was justified in killing Barns. Barns had tried to kill Ellias and indirectly led to his death which gave Charlie Sheen's character a strong reason to seek revenge. So regardless of whether or not Barns was armed, he had killed an ally also.
If i would have to choose a side I would have to go with Sgt. Ellis, becaus he believes in fighting the war not the people. Even if Barns is a better leader Ellis is a better person. I believe Charlie Sheen was right in killing barns. Barns told him to do and was all around not a sound person or right.
I would follow Ellis since hge is a fair and just soldier that would give me a good chance of surviving. Barnes on the other hand would give me a great chance at surviving but at great cost of guilt. I also think that Charlie Sheens character was just in fragging Barnes since Barnes killed Sheen's friend and and would never feel the effects of the justice system due to his record in the service.
i hope i would side with Sgt. Ellis but when your actualy there the question becomes a whole of a lot harder. One might just side with the biggest badest dog which was barnes, your morality becomes twisted when your doing whatever you can to just make it back home alive. Right now sitting in my comfy computer chair i would defonatly choose Ellis but if i was there, im not going to lie, my morals might change.
I know it would be nice to say that I would be the good guy and follow Sgt. Ellias example, but i have to agree with ben that maybe the actual experience of war would change my morals. I deffinetly do not approve of killing innocent people, but in war I have a feeling that maybe when i realized that I was actually fighting for my life, I might have to do some inhumane things just to see another day, which is why i can't entirely say i'd follow Sgt. Ellias' example. But for the most part i would follow Sgt. Ellias' example because as history has shown, killing and violence (especially of innocent people) has never solved anything. And as far as Charlie Sheens character killing Sgt. Barnes, the movie does make it seem as if it was the right justifiable thing to do, but when it comes down to it killing sgt. barnes only brings charlie sheens character down to barnes' level, so i don't think that sgt. barnes being killed was justifiable
I would fallow sgt. Ellis becuase he seemed to be a lot more fair than barns. He also had better strdgeties and may have had a little more care foe his troops than Barns had. I think that Charlie killing Barns was the right thing to do. It may be concidered to be wrong because there was no real reason to. However I think that it was one of those difficult tasks that justhad to be done. It showed great leadership and mental power that Charlie was able to kill him.
this is Cody Andrus
-apparently i already made a google account and i dont know what my user name is or my password so i will be posting as mike for this entry.
i would follow Sgt. Barnes. he may be cruel be he does what is best in his mind for his troops. if barnes would not have given those orders to burn down the village those vietnamese may have supplied the north with weapons. that is a risk not worth takeing. Sgt. ellis thinks with his heart while Barnes thinks with his head. the ideal soldier is not some one who cares about feelings it is someone who will take names with a grin on his face.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis becuase he cares about his men more than Sgt. Burns. Burns is crazy and just wants to kill the vietnamese, he doesnt care who he kills as long as the mission gets done.
I also agree with connor and ben, because i would like to follow the good soldier and stick with Ellias, but at teh same time i would rather go along with sgt barnes because he has more experience. I Think charlie feels he did the right thing at the time, he killed a bad person but a good leader.
i have never founght in a war,maybe if i did i would change my mind. but i would follow sgt. ellias because he did what he had to do. i know it was wrong of him to follow though with it and it was hard because he wasn't just killing anyone he was killing an american who was a very intelligent man with years of experience, im glad i will never probably have to be in that situation.
I would follow Sgt. Ellias. He was way more just than Barnes. Sgt. Barnes was a jerk and treated everyone around him very poorly. Even in spite of his attitude problem, Charlie Sheen had no right to frag him. Murding the enemy is expected and it's how we win wars, but killing our own only ends up hurting us in the end. Barnes was a very good soldier even though he was a jerk.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis. He seemed to have more of a grip on reality. then Sgt. Barns. I would trust Ellis to make better decisions then Barns That would keep me alive longer. I think that there was so much anger within Charlie for Ellis murder that he finally killed barns. it seemed just to him at the time. I dont know if i would be able to kill one of my own fellow soldiers though no matter what bad things he did more bloodshed wasnt needed.
I would be more likely to follow Sgt. Ellias because I think he was a better leader than Sgt. Barnes. Barnes was very obviously corrupt and handled situations in a violent, even cruel, way and I don't know that I would be able to do that.
Yes, I think Charlie Sheen's character was justified in killing Sgt Barnes. Barnes was an immoral leader and often ended up in dangerous situations. He made the war very difficult for many of the soldiers and he and Sgt. Ellias disagreed so often that with Barnes gone, it was much easier for the soldiers to follow one leader and one set of orders.
If i were a soldier during the vietnam War i would follow Sgt. Ellias. i would follow him because he would of made the situation of me being there easier because he is a better leader. I believe that Charlie Sheens should not of killed Sgt Barnes because it was murder and he had no right to kill him. It was unnecessary and he should not of killed him
I would go with Sgt. Ellis because he is more of a true leade. Barns just wants to kill all of the civilans in the villige
I would follow Sgt ellis because i feel that he is a more just and fair leader. He shows more of the chacteristics of a leader and demands respect from his men, unlike Sgt barnes however he does not abuse his power and puts his men before himself.
I think that charlie's character was justified in killing Barnes because he was avenging the death of ellis. By our standards it might be considered murder but in the situation that occured i believe it was a justfird killing
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he came off to me as a leader with much more just and upright motives than Sgt. Barnes. He went into the war with more than just a hunger to kill, and more consideration and humane feeling toward the people of Vietnam and his own soldiers.
Charlie may have had a right according to his morals, and I'm sure many others would have-and had-assumed the same rights, but I would like to hope that human nature is not quite so cruel. In my opinion, in Charlie's situation, though I would like to think I wouldn't do so myself, he had a right to kill Sgt. Barnes.
I would follow Sgt. Ellis because he seemed like a more fair leader then Sgt. Barns. While acting intelligent and adjusting to the situation. I think that Charlie Sheens had no right too kill Sgt.Barns. Charlie committed murder which is even worse because sgt. barns was unarmed at the time. Beside that Sgt. barns was a mean person.
I would falow sgt Barns becouse he is more cutthrote and is the kind of man needed for this type of war if he thinls there bad he kills them and so would i. he would keep me alive so i would fallow him!
Post a Comment