tim_duncan2000
Active Member
- Jan 11, 2004
- 694
- 66
- 28
I know what you mean. I think it's extremely insulting to suggest that the military somehow turns them into bloodthirsty automatons who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Avatar4321 said:Let me get this straight.
A Marine, who was shot in the face the previous day, shoots an unarmed terrorist who was pretending to be dead after watching many of his comrades get blown up by booby trapped bodies is enough to show the America is evil, and this soldier has to be investigated and punished and this administration must be punshed etc.
Yet a Navey swift boat vet shots an unarmed Viet Cong running away in the back of the head and not only is he not to be tried for war crimes, he is to be praised as a hero and nominated for President in the political party condemning the Marine.
Double standard here is super thick.
i agree, the worst part of it is that mistakes like this will happen and everybody seems trying to zoom on it like war is some sort of clean room surgical operation... argh....Merlin1047 said:From the CS article you sourced:
"Yet in the heat of the moment Saturday, a young marine did severe damage to the image of a precise and clean assault that the US had hoped to project from Fallujah. The footage has already become more fodder on jihadi websites peddling the conspiracy theory that the US is on a crusade against global Islam. It also caused cringing in the capitals of US friends and allies. Tuesday, UN Human Rights chief Louise Arbour called for an investigation of alleged US abuses in Fallujah."
I really get sick of crap like this. "precise and clean assault". When the hell will the media and the damn politicians come to realize that THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!!
If our damn government could not manage a "precise and clean assault" on the Branch Davidians, how the hell do you expect us to do that when attacking a whole damn city?
Let the arabs spew and sputter. The best thing we can do is make those assholes understand we're not messing around. If you're our enemy, you're going to die. The thing which emboldens arab terrorists is LACK of action, not shooting some dumb bastard in the head.
***end of rant***
***serious raving to follow***
CSM said:Pure, unadulterated bullshit. There is no other way to say it.
I have been in many battles, some fiercer than others. There is no "complete surrender of self control" or self guidance nor is it "required". The "we" you speak of as knowing the face of war is horse puckey too. I know the face of war and I can tell you that unless you have been there, you have NO FRIKKIN IDEA what war is about or what it is like. US soldiers are not automatons or berserkers. Many of you who have never been there like to pose yourselves as so morally superior...you have no clue as to what you would do in a similar situation. Most soldiers don't know for certain what they will do in any given situation until they are in it. Hopefully, basic training and predeployment training will be sufficient to ensure their survival and help their fellow soldiers survive too.
You folks who are so morally superior to those soldiers in combat can take your holier than though attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Merlin1047 said:From the CS article you sourced:
"Yet in the heat of the moment Saturday, a young marine did severe damage to the image of a precise and clean assault that the US had hoped to project from Fallujah. The footage has already become more fodder on jihadi websites peddling the conspiracy theory that the US is on a crusade against global Islam. It also caused cringing in the capitals of US friends and allies. Tuesday, UN Human Rights chief Louise Arbour called for an investigation of alleged US abuses in Fallujah."
I really get sick of crap like this. "precise and clean assault". When the hell will the media and the damn politicians come to realize that THERE IS NO SUCH THING!!!!
If our damn government could not manage a "precise and clean assault" on the Branch Davidians, how the hell do you expect us to do that when attacking a whole damn city?
Let the arabs spew and sputter. The best thing we can do is make those assholes understand we're not messing around. If you're our enemy, you're going to die. The thing which emboldens arab terrorists is LACK of action, not shooting some dumb bastard in the head.
***end of rant***
***serious raving to follow***
gaffer said:I'll speak from personal experience at war.
I watched the video. The Marine did everything right. The situation they were in calls for shoot first ask questions later. If you even suspect the guy is a threat you kill him. Its not cops and robbers there. That scene was probably replayed many times over in other locations just not filmed by anyone. It was taped and reported because some reporter wants a pulitzer prize.
Those screaming about how terrible it was have never been in combat and have no business even talking about it.
As for how the military changes people. The purpose of basic training and advance training is to instill discipline. Not to creat murderers. You must be willing and able to follow orders immediately without thinking about it. It could be a matter of life and death and hesitation can be deadly. They are also taught to react in extreme stress situations. That is what that Marine did.
They are killing garbage over there. Not some boy next door type or even another soldier.
When in doubt, pump a few rounds in em.
As I understand it, this particular reporter and his cameraman went to great lengths to integrate themselves into this unit and earn the trust of its members. I cannot help but believe that the soldiers of this particular unit (at the very least) will have a very hard ime trusting any embedded reporter team ever again. Can't say as I would blame them either.dilloduck said:and just who is it that is protecting these reporters and videographers from being killed while they try to get a scoop???? I'd tell em to get the hell out of my unit and find thier own way out of Iraq ! Ungrateful bastards!
Zhukov said:You think Nagasaki was a war crime?
nakedemperor said:In my opinion, the rules of engagement shift from from war to war, from battle to battle. On a battlefield where your enemy ignores the generally accepted combat norms, you have no choice but to match his tactics. If your enemy ignores the Geneva convention, in some case, it is your right to self defense to ignore the Geneva convention as well. Over the course of United States history, there are many instances of the military ignoring the Geneva convention simply because they were faced with a choice: fight on equal footing and be willing to assume the tactics of your enemy, or essentially fight with one hand tied behind your back.
In Shakespeare's Henry V, the English were holding French prisoners after an initial engagement. They were, however, vastly outnumbered in enemy territory. They could expect to save their own lives (by taking the field) and abide by the accepted rules of engagement (giving prisoners quarter). Instead of guarding the prisoners with soldiers that needed to be at the front lines, they executed the prisoners. Henry's pragmatic decision to do so could be seen as immoral, but considering the circumstances, he was taking French lives to save English lives.
By assuming that an enemy soldier in Iraq was not in possession of a bomb, in close quarters, when similar tactics are known to have been used, you're endangering U.S. lives to preserve the life of an enemy combatant. Had the man been wear no possibly concealing garments, had his hands on his head, the situation would have been different; but as it was, it was necessary to approach the man at close range in order to ascertain whether or not he was a threat.
That isn't to say that there isn't point at which fighting fire with fire becomes immoral. The My Lai massacre, for example. The firebombings of Dresden by the Allies in WWII, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki after Hiroshima had already been nuked, the firebombing of Tokyo; saying "the Germans and the Japanese commited war crimes before, therefore we were justified in killing all these civilians" doesn't hold water in these cases. But in the case of this marine in that mosque, I say he did the right thing. Case by case basis.
Well, you did say more or less that it was unjustified, and compared it to Japanese and German war crimes by saying the rationale behind it was 'they did this' therefore 'we did that'.nakedemperor said:I'm saying a case could be made. The bomb could have theoretically been used once and achieved the same effect on morale.
Zhukov said:Well, you did say more or less that it was unjustified, and compared it to Japanese and German war crimes by saying the rationale behind it was 'they did this' therefore 'we did that'.
Were we or were we not at war? Did they surrender after Hiroshima?
I think it is a tragedy that today so many Americans are quick to question the legitimacy of acts committed during our 'total war' against the Japanese and Germans 60 years after the fact.
It leads me to believe that criticizing America has gained primacy over learning about what was actually going on during World War II and the stakes that were involved.
About 51 million people died during that war.
The four events you listed, Dresden (40,000), Nagasaki (92,000), Hiroshima (45,000), and Tokio (84,000), constitute collectively, about one half of one percent of the total casualties.
It's about perspective and concentrating on what's really important.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm