Should a soldier be excused if he went on a rampage.

[kiwi_2005]

Been a heavy debate in a local kiwi forum on the US soldiers killing villages recently. was 50/50 but got to heated and the moderator deleted it. lol. Most of the argument was this: The US have managed to keep there cool for this long apart from the odd killings that shouldn't of happened, that they should be excuse for what recently happened where the soliders involved should be sent home and delt with accordingly but they should note that this is war and terrible things happen therefore treatment instead of prison would be more appropriate. Imagine nearly every day seeing your fellow men some probably very close to you blown to bits or badly injured, with a country that blames you even though your trying to help them. And from all this your suppose to keep your cool. Why though take out the children. They must of been very outraged to do this. If i saw my mates go down around me, i dont know how i would react but i would be very angry. No matter how well your trained, you can't fully train emotions.

[Onkel Neal]

Wish the poll had a simple "no". US Soldiers should never lose it like this, and never shoot children unless they are packing.

[kiwi_2005]

Yeah sorry i realised i missed out the no/yes, but i can't re-edit a poll.

[Ducimus]

Vote needs a simple "no".

Everyone looses it from time to time. Somtimes sanity is in short supply, and people can only take so much. Still, you have to maintain a standard, regardless.

edit:
as for the last option "I thought only nazis took villages out."
People are alike in many ways, regardless of country. Generally speaking, from my experience, people are products of their enviorment. When you put people in a real ****ty enviorment, and keep them in what is tantamount to a steamcooker, you'd be amazed at what can manifest itself. I know what its like to simply, "not give a **** anymore". Infact, at one point in my enlistment while overseas, i coudlnt even remember when i was born. Let alone what home was like. So yes i can emphasis to the guilty soldiers to some degree, that is, if you want to talk about being burnt out and disconnected. But standards and intergrity must be maintained, period, thats non negotiable.

[Ishmael]

Let's remember that most of these guys are on their 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The nature of counter-insurgency warfare is that there are no clearly defined enemies. When you consider that a good percentage of US troops there are reservists and national guard troops ill-trained and lacking in the language skills needed to perform in an occupation and counter-insurgent operation, I am surprised that there are not more incidents like Haditha. That said, my question is where are the officers who led these troops? They must bear the ultimate responsibility for controlling the men under their command. If they either were not present on the patrol or allowed this to happen, they are guilty of dereliction of duty at the very least. We must always remember that war is a dirty business and that counter-insurgency war is the dirtiest of all. When you add the numerous deployments many of these men are subjected to without any counseling or treatment for post-traumatic stress, the strategy or lack of same by the political leadership, it's small wonder these incidents happen. Remember, that the vast majority of servicemen in Vietnam were only required to serve one one-year term. Most of these men, as stated above, are not only on their 3rd or 4th tour but are also kept in beyond their EAOS(End of Active Obligated Service) by the illegal and immoral Stop-Loss Program. This does not excuse the behavior, but does put it into perspective.

[Ducimus]

That said, my question is where are the officers who led these troops? They must bear the ultimate responsibility for controlling the men under their command.
Unless any of said officers issued some sort of order, directive, or influence, i'll wager not much more then administrative action is placed upon them. Hard to say really, **** rolls downhill. It all depends on who's in charge.

As for the enlisted men under question, Frankly i think how long they've been there, why, and how much of a husk they've become becaus of it wont be looked upon with much relevancy. They'll be made examples of.

[bradclark1]

I can understand it but can't condone it.
I haven't really read anything on the action itself but if my buddy got killed by an IED and figured these villagers knew it was there........... Thats a tremendous amount of rage. When you are in a rage like that you don't identify people as men, women and children. You just identify them as something that needs to be destroyed. You just want to kill and kill.
I blame it on being kept over their too long and being missused. How many rotations have they been through? How many times have they been attacked yet can't do a thing about it? Imagine the stress.

[scandium]

The US have managed to keep there cool for this long apart from the odd killings that shouldn't of happened, that they should be excuse for what recently happened where the soliders involved should be sent home and delt with accordingly but they should note that this is war and terrible things happen therefore treatment instead of prison would be more appropriate. Imagine nearly every day seeing your fellow men some probably very close to you blown to bits or badly injured, with a country that blames you even though your trying to help them.

One could use such arguements to excuse all kinds of behaviour. Not to say that these killings happened in a vacuum, or should be considered that way, but to simply excuse it and give them treatment? What about if the guy's fuse is a little longer and he doesn't blow until after he gets home, then goes on this kind of rampage in his own home town, slaying women and children execution style there? Do you excuse that as well and suggest he simply needs some treatment? One might be tempted to respond "but this was in the heat of the moment," to which I would reply that this is not considered a valid defence in criminal matters and justly so. Sure Iraq is a hell hole, and yes an IED had just gone off. Its also a war zone so I don't see how either of these factors should surprise anyone.

[August]

I would neither condone nor accept such unprofessional behavior in any unit i belonged to. Unstable soldiers are unreliable in combat and a danger even to their own side, but we must recognize that in any large number of people living in a tense situation, there are going to be those who do horrible things. It's human nature. An evil and terrible part of human nature, to be fought and rooted out wherever it raises its ugly head, but a part none the less.

What's important, really important, is how their nation deals with such incidents when they occur. Are these heinous acts condemned with the perpetrators judged and punished according to the law, or are their actions ignored or even applauded.

That is essentially the difference between us and our enemies and what makes our societies worth defending.

[TLAM Strike]

Don’t some countries still reserve the right to undertake reprisals against civilians for unlawful acts of war by the other side (Germany and the UK do IIRC). If some terrorists bomb your convoy round up some of people they are fighting for and shoot them in Town Square I say. Muslim rules of war are a lot less generous than ours.

[jumpy]

Without looking too closely at the particulars of this case I think this illustrates quite clearly some of the poblems facing a modern military force. Like the case recently of british troops beating the s***t out of some young iraqis and being cought doing it on film - Troops are trained to kill, that is their purpose. Get the job done preferably using the most expedient means. Much of that training relies on speed and aggression to control a situation or overcome an objective.
Some small wonder that troops who are trained in such a way have difficulties when they have a 'police force' role imposed upon them. A soldiers natrual, encouraged reaction to a threat is to meet that threat with all the force available at his disposal. Generally this doesn't include giving whatever bad guys who might be around a second chance.
Sure military personnel are also trained to perform other duties, but the primary function of the infantry soldier is to kill. It's got to be pretty frustrating to have to not respond in the way you have been trained to do when coming under attack or when encountering difficult circumstances, particularily when there are conflicting directives for engaging the 'enemy'.
I'm not condoning such apparently vicious behaviour, but really, what's the difference between troops on the ground killing 'innocent' people and laser guided munitions going astray and doing the same? At the end of the day you still end up with a bunch of dead people.
As has already been alluded to; war is a nasty business. But what we hear from Iraq these days (excluding the outrage over hostage killings) seems to pale in comparison to some of the things I've read about the fighting on the eastern front between Germany and the Soviets during WW2. Things might seem bad over there to us now, but I'd venture to say they're not even close to the awful brutality of Stalingrad etc.
With any luck those who need to will get to the bottom of this one and find out the truth of the matter and act appropriately.

[Konovalov]

Wish the poll had a simple "no". US Soldiers should never lose it like this, and never shoot children unless they are packing.

:yep:

The poll question is fine but the answer options are floored. As has been said a few times there should be a no option.

And I totally agree with what August said here:

What's important, really important, is how their nation deals with such incidents when they occur. Are these heinous acts condemned with the perpetrators judged and punished according to the law, or are their actions ignored or even applauded.


This incident is in the process of being investigated and whilst it doesn't look good I will hold judgement until after the findings of the investigtion come out.

[Skybird]

Simple answer: No.

However, soldiers are human being, and they react to the terror of war, or constant frustration in human ways. Which unfortunately includes trying to find relief for the accumulated frustration or pressure, which can lead to events like this.

Which, however, cannot be an excuse to spare them being held responsible.

The real question is if war is acceptable. "War doesn't ennoble man. It turns man into a dog." If you start a war, expect to see events like this at times.

[Konovalov]

If some terrorists bomb your convoy round up some of people they are fighting for and shoot them in Town Square I say.

It didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan nor will such a stupid idea work here. Not to mention summarily executing unarmed civilians in a town square compromises the values and standards to which our nations hold so dearly and use as an example for other nations to follow across the globe. I suggest you go read a couple of books on counter-insurgency by experts such as Lester Grau or Robert Taber. You'll find that your method suggested is totally counter-productive to say the least. Major General David Petraeus never employed such tactics and look at the successes he had which served as a model for the rest of Iraq.

[scandium]

If some terrorists bomb your convoy round up some of people they are fighting for and shoot them in Town Square I say. Muslim rules of war are a lot less generous than ours.

Let's see... reasons to invade Iraq:
Iraq's vast arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the US and its allies. What's that? We still haven't found this enornous stockpile of banned weapons? No problem!
Iraq's connection to 9/11. What's that? We still haven't found any credible evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11? No problem!
Saddam Hussein tortures and rapes Iraqis. What's that? We've been caught torturing and sodomizing Iraqis? No problem!
Saddam Hussein has innocent Iraqis killed. What's that? We've been caught summarily executing unarmed women and children? No problem!
"Saddam Hussein has tried to kill my daddy!"Well 1 out 5 isn't too bad I suppose. Though at least August and a few others seem to understand why this sort of behaviour cannot be tolerated and excused.

[scandium]

Sure military personnel are also trained to perform other duties, but the primary function of the infantry soldier is to kill. It's got to be pretty frustrating to have to not respond in the way you have been trained to do when coming under attack or when encountering difficult circumstances, particularily when there are conflicting directives for engaging the 'enemy'.


Trained to kill the enemy. Not to kill indiscriminately. Not to execute unarmed women and children. This was the modus operandi of the Serbian Militias during the Yugoslavian conflict. Recall that was justly denounced as genocide and that the UN intervened by sending in professional militaries to put a stop to it.

[STEED]

Tricky one as you need all the facts and not to base an answer on what the news tells you, but on saying that no solider should break the rules they must follow.

[August]

Let's see... reasons to invade Iraq:
Iraq's vast arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the US and its allies. What's that? We still haven't found this enornous stockpile of banned weapons? No problem!
Iraq's connection to 9/11. What's that? We still haven't found any credible evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11? No problem!
Saddam Hussein tortures and rapes Iraqis. What's that? We've been caught torturing and sodomizing Iraqis? No problem!
Saddam Hussein has innocent Iraqis killed. What's that? We've been caught summarily executing unarmed women and children? No problem!
"Saddam Hussein has tried to kill my daddy!"Well 1 out 5 isn't too bad I suppose. Though at least August and a few others seem to understand why this sort of behaviour cannot be tolerated and excused.

No problem you say? What a load of crap! :down:

Why do you attempt to equate behavior that is both unacceptable and severely punished when it occurs in the US Military with mass murder deliberately committed on orders of the enemy leadership?

Your irrational hatred of the present administration has made you blind to the difference between truth and fantasy and you seem quite willing to distort anything and everything in your zeal to make them look bad. It has also given you a case of selective memory when it comes to what was accepted as common knowledge by both sides of the aisle before the removal of Saddam from power.

If you want to know why the Democrats (who do the same thing on a national level) continue to loose elections, there's your reason. The American people would rather have a bunch of greedy businessmen in power than hand it to a group who are willing to cheer on our enemies in order to hurt their political opponents.

[jumpy]

Trained to kill the enemy. Not to kill indiscriminately. Not to execute unarmed women and children. This was the modus operandi of the Serbian Militias during the Yugoslavian conflict. Recall that was justly denounced as genocide and that the UN intervened by sending in professional militaries to put a stop to it.
Yes, trained to kill the enemy, whoever that may be at this time (to me that's a very subjective term in itself), but trained to 'kill' none the less, which is why using the military as a police force is much harder to reconcile with what could be described as more 'civillian' activities, ie. policing the streets as opposed to maintaining a combat presence against a clearly defined adversary.
Besides, I was not making a case for accepting what may or may not have happened, merely stating what I thought might be a contributing factor in the events preceeding this case, other than the wider implications dictated by policy when compared to the behaviour of boots on the ground.
One of the main differences (perceived, real or otherwise) between the brits and the americans in this respect is our 30 years or so of experience in northern ireland. It is a view held by many here that the americans can be a bit gung-ho when it comes to more domestic military operations, tending to err on the side of overkill, or so it would sometimes appear.

[scandium]

No problem you say? What a load of crap! :down:

Why do you attempt to equate behavior that is both unacceptable and severely punished when it occurs in the US Military with mass murder deliberately committed on orders of the enemy leadership?

Your irrational hatred of the present administration has made you blind to the difference between truth and fantasy and you seem quite willing to distort anything and everything in your zeal to make them look bad. It has also given you a case of selective memory when it comes to what was accepted as common knowledge by both sides of the aisle before the removal of Saddam from power.
"Irrational hatred" of the present administration eh? Now there's a neat twist. Funny how citing a few inconvenient facts in a rebuttal to someone's suggestion that the US commit war crimes by lining up and shooting civilians in the Town Square means that I have an "irrational hatred" of the present administration.

If you're going to accuse me of being irrational and dishonest, perhaps you could at least point out - specifically - where in my post that I'm being irrational and dishonest. In the meantime, allow me to back up my assertions with the inconvenient facts as reported by mainstream news sources:

On the fact that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of WMD at the time of the US invasion: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/ (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/%5D)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

On the lack of any connection between Iraq and 9/11: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932

"WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States."


On the widespread and systemic abuse committed at Abu Ghraib: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

"General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”


A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community."

On the alleged war crimes committed by the US mlitary in Haditha and subsequent coverup: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198892,00.html

"Sparked by a TIME report published in March, a U.S. military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24 Iraqi civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges, including murder. And new revelations suggest that their superiors may have helped in a cover-up."

On GWB's assertion that Saddam Hussein attempted to kill his daddy: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.""

[scandium]

A related story, and note I didn't write it so don't shoot the messenger (no pun intended): http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0147659.htm


FACTBOX-U.S. troops and civilian complaints in Iraq

BAGHDAD, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. forces are investigating whether Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha last year.

Here are some other incidents that have made headlines about U.S. forces' treatment of civilians in Iraq:

April 28, 2003 - Troops of the 82nd Airborne Division open fire as 100 or so demonstrators surround their base in the Sunni town of Falluja. Officers said they returned fire against two men with rifles and said up to 10 people were killed. The local hospital put the casualty toll at 13 dead and 75 wounded.

Jan. 3, 2004 - Zaidoun Faleh Hassoun believed drowned after U.S. soldiers pushed two men into the Tigris river at Samarra. Two soldiers were sentenced to up to six months for assault.

April 28 - U.S. television broadcasts photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing detainees in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison. Several military police, the most senior a sergeant, were jailed or disciplined. Some cases go on. Commanders deny ordering torture.

May 19 - About 40 people killed in U.S. air strike on desert encampment at Mogr al-Deeb in western Iraq. Denying local accounts, including video footage, that the dead were innocently celebrating a wedding, U.S. military insists most were foreign Arab militants: "Bad people have parties too," a spokesman said.

Sept. 12 - Two U.S. helicopters fire rockets, killing at least five people among a crowd around a crippled U.S. armoured vehicle on central Baghdad's Haifa Street. Among the dead was journalist Mazen Tomeizi, hit while speaking to his camera. At first, the military said the pilots fired to destroy the Bradley vehicle. Later they said they were responding to gunshots.

Nov. 13 - Unnamed corporal from 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment filmed shooting apparently unarmed and wounded man in a mosque. Commanders ruled he could have "reasonably believed" the man and two others he shot in the mosque were hostile.

June 25 - Mohammed al-Sumaidaie, 21, shot dead at home near Haditha. His cousin Samir al-Sumaidaie, now Iraqi ambassador in Washington, accuses Marines of "cold-blooded murder" but says the military ruled that they acted in self-defence.

Oct. 16 - Iraqi officials in the restive Sunni city of Ramadi say about 20 civilians, including children, killed in air strike near wreck of U.S. vehicle. Military says 20 militants killed when F-15 bombs group of men burying explosives in road.

March 15, 2006 - Police say six adults and five children shot dead in U.S. raid on home in Ishaqi, north of Baghdad. The 101st Airborne Division says two women and a child died during arrest of al Qaeda militant. Investigation was announced but U.S. spokesmen were this week unable to say who conducting it.

March 18 - Iraqi police say U.S. soldiers shot dead a 13-year-old boy and his parents in their home in the Sunni town of Dhuluiya, 90 km (55 miles) north of Baghdad, saying they were among eight people killed after a U.S. patrol was ambushed. The 101st Airborne says troops killed seven "attacking terrorists".

April 26 - Iraqi man killed at Hamandiya, western Iraq. U.S. military says investigating. U.S. media reports say Marines were questioned about whether they took man from home and shot him.

May 4 - 101st Airborne Division says troops kill two men and a woman after being fired on from house in Samarra, adding the dead were involved in attack. Police name two dead women aged 60 and 20 and a mentally handicapped man and say they were unarmed. Relatives tell Reuters troops fired on them in a room.

May 30 - U.S. forces shoot dead two women in a car near Samarra. Troops say driver ignored signs to stop. Relatives and police say one of dead women was pregnant and going to hospital.

[August]

"Irrational hatred" of the present administration eh? Now there's a neat twist. Funny how citing a few inconvenient facts in a rebuttal to someone's suggestion that the US commit war crimes by lining up and shooting civilians in the Town Square means that I have an "irrational hatred" of the present administration.

If you're going to accuse me of being irrational and dishonest, perhaps you could at least point out - specifically - where in my post that I'm being irrational and dishonest. In the meantime, allow me to back up my assertions with the inconvenient facts as reported by mainstream news sources:

On the fact that Iraq did not possess stockpiles of WMD at the time of the US invasion: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/ (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/%5D)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

On the lack of any connection between Iraq and 9/11: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932

"WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States."


On the widespread and systemic abuse committed at Abu Ghraib: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

"General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”


A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community."

On the alleged war crimes committed by the US mlitary in Haditha and subsequent coverup: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198892,00.html

"Sparked by a TIME report published in March, a U.S. military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24 Iraqi civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges, including murder. And new revelations suggest that their superiors may have helped in a cover-up."

On GWB's assertion that Saddam Hussein attempted to kill his daddy: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.""

C'mon now. You can backtrack all you want but to imply that the US military feels that abu grahib (and any other conduct in violation of the UCMJ) is "no problem" shows plainly your eagerness to toss as much mud as possible at the current administration even at the expense of the truth.

[scandium]

C'mon now. You can backtrack all you want but to imply that the US military feels that abu grahib (and any other conduct in violation of the UCMJ) is "no problem" shows plainly your eagerness to toss as much mud as possible at the current administration even at the expense of the truth.

No August, it shows what I think of the mentality of the post I was quoting that advocated lining civilians up in the Town Square and shooting them in retaliation for convoy attacks. Sure I had done it in a very snide way, but advocating the killing of innocents (whether Iraqi, American, Australian, or whatever) tends to bring out my cynicism.

[August]

No August, it shows what I think of the mentality of the post I was quoting that advocated lining civilians up in the Town Square and shooting them in retaliation for convoy attacks. Sure I had done it in a very snide way, but advocating the killing of innocents (whether Iraqi, American, Australian, or whatever) tends to bring out my cynicism.

If that is so then why do you attack the military and the administration when it's really a person here whose opinion you disagree with?

You do understand the difference don't you?

[scandium]

If that is so then why do you attack the military and the administration when it's really a person here whose opinion you disagree with?

You do understand the difference don't you?

Sure I do, and my post wasn't intended as an attack on the US Military or the administration. It was merely meant to highlight the disconnent I see between the many who rationalize the war in Iraq as liberation from tyranny and brutality while silmultaneously excusing (and even encouraging) acts of tyranny and brutality.

I brought up Abu Ghraib not because the incidents are related, but because I'd encountered this same disconnect during that scandal.

[TLAM Strike]

It didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan nor will such a stupid idea work here. Not to mention summarily executing unarmed civilians in a town square compromises the values and standards to which our nations hold so dearly and use as an example for other nations to follow across the globe. I suggest you go read a couple of books on counter-insurgency by experts such as Lester Grau or Robert Taber. You'll find that your method suggested is totally counter-productive to say the least. Major General David Petraeus never employed such tactics and look at the successes he had which served as a model for the rest of Iraq. World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs. The Japanese decide to fight to the death we oblige and use every weapon we have against them. Stick to a strategy that works.

Some of the Ex-Military people in my family and circle of friends who served in the shadow of the Vietnam War say we need to bring back Napalm and Buzz Bombs. My friends and family were the lowly grunts and seamen, they know what happens to the bottom of the chain of command when you invade someplace. If they were running the war in Iraq it would have been over in 25 minutes. They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.

[Sailor Steve]

No.

I was going to leave it that, but the system told me I have to use at least five characters.

So I'll repeat.

:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Say what?

I'm starting to have issues with this newfangled board.

[squigian]

This song says it all...and so does the next :):

To the tune of 'Wake the town and tell the people'
Strafe the Town and Kill the People

Strafe the town and kill the people
Let's declare a massacre.
Lay napalm in the square,
So you'll know that Jake was there

Drop the candy in the courtyard,
Let the kiddies gather 'round.
Crank your twenty-millimeter,
Gun the little bastards down.

Come 'round early Sunday morning,
Catch the village unaware.
Drop a bunch of cluster bomblets,
Get 'em while they kneel in prayer. and, to the tune of 'Men of Harlech':

The Atrocity Song

Burn the town and kill the people
Throw a baby from a steeple
rob and steal and what we take will
Aid our victory.

We will mutilate the dying
Scalp the wounded, skin the crying
Burn their barns and while they're frying
We'll sit down to tea.

From the highest roof top (stomp stomp)
You shall hear a pin drop (stomp stomp)
We came down, wiped out the town
Made off with all the livestock and the corn crop (stomp stomp)

Rob and kill and give no quarter
Piss into the drinking water
Kill the fathers rape the daughters
Rangers All Are We!

[Ducimus]

:roll:
After reading this thread since yesterday, i thought i might need some hipwaders. Unforutnaly i coudlnt find some. Instead, i find some of this. I got first dibs, anyone else want some?

http://home.tiscali.be/joke1/Neju4/bull****.jpg

[kiwi_2005]

World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs. The Japanese decide to fight to the death we oblige and use every weapon we have against them. Stick to a strategy that works.

Some of the Ex-Military people in my family and circle of friends who served in the shadow of the Vietnam War say we need to bring back Napalm and Buzz Bombs. My friends and family were the lowly grunts and seamen, they know what happens to the bottom of the chain of command when you invade someplace. If they were running the war in Iraq it would have been over in 25 minutes. They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.

:o :yep::rock:

[CB..]

The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.

that's perfect when the tanks are rolling--:up:

completely counter productive when you have no idea who's friend and who's foe--if for no other reason than the general populace start to experience the exact same problem--:shifty:

[scandium]

World War II. Germans bomb British cities, We bomb theirs- we bombed theirs better. They attack our unarmed ships without warning we attack theirs.
The paragraph you had quoted from Konovalov was on counter-insurgency, which is what is applicable to Iraq. What you're bringing up here are separate campaigns that were all tied to the more central campaign of encircling and defeating Germany and Italy on the battlefield. That was accomplished in Iraq 3 years ago, so how is any of this applicable?

They want to preserve our democracy not spread it. The fact that if you oppose the US you and everyone you know will die and we will not stop until your side unconditionally surrenders is a fairly strong deterrent.
You could probably make that case for Afghanistan, seeing how it was connected to 9/11. I would disagree with your methods but at least they have some relevance. How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.

Using your logic, why not simply kill everyone else on the planet to preserve your democracy pre-emptively against the same non-existant threats to it that Iraq posed? It would make about as much sense.

[Konovalov]

The paragraph you had quoted from Konovalov was on counter-insurgency, which is what is applicable to Iraq. What you're bringing up here are separate campaigns that were all tied to the more central campaign of encircling and defeating Germany and Italy on the battlefield. That was accomplished in Iraq 3 years ago, so how is any of this applicable?

The simple answer is that it's not applicable as you highlight.

[Skybird]

It all comes down to this: wage war for the wrong reasons, against an enemy you do not understand, fight him in the wrong place, and with a confused sense of timing, and at the same time try to be political correct - and you should not be surprised to get what you got here. Both on the campaign and the individual soldier-level. I have no doubt that this is not the only incident of this kind, what makes it different is that this one has not successfully avoided detection. We also have strong clues that massacres also took place on a formal, organoized level, and in Afghnaistan. These may be commited by the local Afghan or Iraqui troops, but nevertheless with knowledge of America. we know that in Iraq police and secret squadron commit more torture and murder now then it was ever the case under Saddam. And we remember the dissappearing of 5000 of 8000 captured Taleban in late 2001, who surrendered in November 2001 and dissappeared during the transportation to a prison near Kabul. Later, human sceletons had been found in several places along the route.

War brings out the worst in man. You wanted war. Don't be surprised to see such events. don'T be so hypocritical to claim that such things are expected not to come with war if it is only the right army that claims to be on the side of the good. Where there is war, you see the pervertion of human being. Always. It is an inevitable consequence.

[Konovalov]

@ TLAM Strike,

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq has it right when he said the following from this article: (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/14718717.htm)
As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies. The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many.
So short of stating the obvious it's quite clear that I dissagree with your approach as to how Coalition forces should conduct this war which is a classic example of an insurgency.

[Subnuts]

Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people. :hmm:

[TLAM Strike]

@ TLAM Strike,

Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq has it right when he said the following from this article: (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/14718717.htm)
As military professionals, it is important that we take time to reflect on the values that separate us from our enemies. The challenge for us is to make sure the actions of a few do not tarnish the good work of the many.
So short of stating the obvious it's quite clear that I dissagree with your approach as to how Coalition forces should conduct this war which is a classic example of an insurgency. Problem is you and the Lt. General think like Counter-insurgents while I think like an insurgent. Insurgancys don't stop until the counter-insurgent side gives in to sufficent demainds of the insurgents or they kill all the insurgents. Considering the main demaind of the insurgents is the destruction of American and Islamic Dictatorship of Iraq we have little choice but to kill all of them.

How does Iraq, which is what we're actually discussing in this thread, tie into what you're saying here? Was Iraq planning an attack on the US? No, this has never been suggested and there is no indication that they were. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US or its allies? The findings of the Iraq Survey Group suggest they did not. Was there any credible link between Iraq and 9/11? The Sept. 11 Commission concluded in their investigation that there wasn't. You have setup a strawman here as it has absolutely no relevance to Iraq. How you go from this strawman to a justification based upon it that the US Military gun down innocent civilians in Iraq I don't understand.The 1991 Iraq War ended in a CEASE FIRE not a peace treaty. The US and its Allies and Iraq were still at war in 2003. US and UK aircraft in the No Fly Zones took AAA fire daily since at least 1997. Shooting at the other side is by definition a violation of a Cease Fire!

As far as gunning down innocent civilians my point is some countries still reserve that right as retaliation for unlawful acts of war. The US should too.

[TLAM Strike]

Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people. :hmm: Mercenary Jayne Cobb ("The Hero of Canton") has an opinion on that subject:

The Manfesto of Jayne:
Jayne: I do not get it. How's a guy get so wrong? Cutting on his own face, raping and murdering. I'll kill a man in a fair fight, or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm getting paid. Mostly only when I'm getting paid. These Reavers, the last 10 years they show up like the boogeyman from stories. Eating people alive? Where does that get fun?


Kaylee: Shepherd Book said they was men who just reached the edge of space,
saw a vasty nothingness and went bibbledy over it.


Jayne: Oh, hell. I've been to the edge. Just looked like more space.

[Skybird]

Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people.An enemy that is TV-recording how he takes a prisoner with his arms bound on his back and who is shivering in fear, and then four men jumps onto him, and another one starts hacking away at his throad with a huge machete, trying to sepaarte the head from the body and after four stropker still has not finished it while the victim still is yelling and gargling, I mean: an enemy who needs five men to hold down one bounded, weak man and still is incapable to cut of his head in one strike - probably is too dumb as that he could be afraid of getting eaten.

[scandium]

The 1991 Iraq War ended in a CEASE FIRE not a peace treaty. The US and its Allies and Iraq were still at war in 2003. US and UK aircraft in the No Fly Zones took AAA fire daily since at least 1997. Shooting at the other side is by definition a violation of a Cease Fire


Which answers none of the questions that I posed to you, nor has this ever been cited as a reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[Skybird]

It seems, another one.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039714.stm

[TLAM Strike]

Which answers none of the questions that I posed to you, nor has this ever been cited as a reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Well it must have been given as a reason sometime otherwise I wouldn't have heard about it.

An enemy that is TV-recording how he takes a prisoner with his arms bound on his back and who is shivering in fear, and then four men jumps onto him, and another one starts hacking away at his throad with a huge machete, trying to sepaarte the head from the body and after four stropker still has not finished it while the victim still is yelling and gargling, I mean: an enemy who needs five men to hold down one bounded, weak man and still is incapable to cut of his head in one strike - probably is too dumb as that he could be afraid of getting eaten. I don't know during WWII the Japanese told the residents of Iwo Jima and Okanawa that the US Marines must eat their mother and father to become Marines and they committed mass suicide when the Marines over ran the island.

[CB..]

I don't know during WWII the Japanese told the residents of Iwo Jima and Okanawa that the US Marines must eat their mother and father to become Marines and they committed mass suicide when the Marines over ran the island.

given the that the terrorists /insurgency members commit suicide during attacks on the military/police/civilians all too frequently etc to start off with--making neutrals/friendlys in the conflict zones feel like they're liable to get killed no matter what happens isn't going to discourage them from taking similar approachs to the situation--there's such a thing as taking this "we're all hard-nuts and we're gonna take you out" stuff too far..no one can argue with the feeling of the troops who took retribution in this manner for the killing of their friends--
but if highly trained, highly disciplined, profesional troops, with a chain of command to answer too, have issues with maintaining discipline when faced with the loss of a close friend --why on earth do we expect civilians with no such training ,discipline or chain of command to behave as if it's perfectly acceptable for their loved one's, family members , even children to get killed----it's not rocket science

[Yahoshua]

I suppose I should apologise for the lateness in throwing in my 2 cents, but was unable to do so due to internet problems. The following post was supposed to have been put up directly after Scandiums 3rd post on the first page:

As much as I hate beating a dead-horse, the tactics the terrorists are using is a hop-skip-and a jump away from what is was in Vietnam.

There is no uniform to put on the enemy, only vague nationalities, and even less clarified tribal affiliations. Not more than a few weeks ago, a woman blew herself up on a checkpoint. And it is suspected that some in the newly formed Iraqi military are moonlighting as the very people these troopers are fighting. Now under the Geneva Convention, nations at war are required to provide basic treatment to POWs' (food, water, shelter, clothing, and medical care). The nations at war are also required to identify their troops by a uniform. The people these men are fighting have no uniform, and have little in the way of humane treatment of POWs'.

To put one's eyes in their boots, think of it this way: You're in the military. You have no rights except what the military has given you. You are required to follow a rigid code of conduct and behavior that will be punished in brutal measures if broken.

So you're ordered to go out on patrol every day with a little rest every once in awhile to help relieve the stress. You expect your tour to end in about 18 months (it's what you signed up for right?). But it doesn't. You forgot to read the small print buried somewhere in that document you signed when you joined saying the military can keep you in for as long as they like if they really needed you.

You're upset. You wanted to go home and have the first cold beer in almost 2 years. Maybe next year, you think to yourself, we'll have this place locked down tighter than an Alabama tick. Another year passes, then you're kept in for another tour......and you're starting to think you'll never leave this place alive. A buddy dies from another unit. Then another time your humvee is hit with a bomb, but you got away unhurt, but poor johnny lost his face in the blast. You hear reports of terrorists using women and young men to carry out suicide bombings. When you're manning the checkpoint, you're sanity is bordering on the paranoia:" Is that pregnant woman really a bomber?" "Is that kid in the carriage sitting on a IED with my name on it?" "Is that guy over there gonna head into that building, and then come out with a rifle and put a bullet through my skull?"

The spiraling begins. You question yourself why you're supposed to obey the rules when the enemy obviously doesn't? "They hide in with civilians before and after they attack, but we can't find them all the time, and it's often too late to stop them beforehand." "Why should we treat 'em nice if we capture one? Hell, they'd kill me by rubbing a rusty knife against my neck until it pops off if they caught me!!"

You think about getting a medical discharge, but you don't want a bad mark that would stick to your record for life. You're stuck, and there's no way out. Everybody's against you, but you don't know who "everybody" is until they throw some lead your way. Another buddy dies.

The paranoia sets in. There's no way out. I don't wanna die. I wanna get the hell outta here! You're ordered to go onto another patrol. Afraid you'll be sent to prison if you refuse, you go without protest. Sitting inside the Humvee your mind races with confusion, desperation, and fear. You feel the shockwave before the sound reaches you, the bottom half of the turret gunner flops on the floor of the humvee in front of you, spilling guts and blood on the floor. You're frozen in space, and you hear the sound of the bomb that killed him. You snap.
================================================== ==========

Were the actions excusable? No. They were not. Was this preventable? Absolutely. So who f*cked up? Because I'm seeing that the sh*t rolls both downhill AND uphill. I can see exactly how everything went to hell for this guy. But he should've been seeing a psychiatrist for acute stress long before this happened.

One must also take into account that these soldiers must act honorably, in an unhonorable war. That in itself, is a high commendation to their character and determination while under pressure.

Edited for text color - NS

[PeriscopeDepth]

Great post.

PD

[Skybird]

Yahoshua points at the human reality of a soldier, like I myself did, but not as detailed. I agree, but one also needs to look beyond that. This siutation does not come as a surprise. Historians and theorists have described exactly this situation before the war. the leaders had been told. They could have red it in reports and books. Listen to it in speeches and interviews. I received quite some bashing back then when I also said that it necessarily, unevitably must come to a situation like we now have in Iraq. Why is it that Americans did not believe? Drunk of their own heroified self-image? History taught so many examples before. Or Afghanistan, several times russian commanders, on official as well as private levels, have offered to share their experiences with the americans - and got slammed a door in their face. "Too kind of you, but we know it better." Tzz. Tell you what - in ten years, at the latest, Afghanistan will be again where it was before 2001. Take me by my word.

Again, the introducing article that I quoted here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=93733

[Bill Nichols]

I have just two words for this: war crimes

:down:

[Skybird]

I have just two words for this: war crimes

:down:

Absolutely. But crimes usually have causes. One needs to understand these causes in order to prevent future crimes.

[scandium]

Well it must have been given as a reason sometime otherwise I wouldn't have heard about it.

That is some fine reasoning there.

[scandium]

Were the actions excusable? No. They were not. Was this preventable? Absolutely. So who f*cked up? Because I'm seeing that the sh*t rolls both downhill AND uphill. I can see exactly how everything went to hell for this guy. But he should've been seeing a psychiatrist for acute stress long before this happened.

One must also take into account that these soldiers must act honorably, in an unhonorable war. That in itself, is a high commendation to their character and determination while under pressure.
I don't disagree with any of this. There are reasons why this happened, and my own feeling is that I can sympathize with their circumstances leading up to it but without excusing their actions. Meanwhile there is undoubtedly blame that goes higher up for putting these people into this pressure cooker and to what end? It has to have a definite impact upon at least some of the people there when they are told they're being sent there to disarm Iraq of WMDs that are never found yet they still have to be there; that they are being sent there because Iraq is being connected to 9/11 only there turns out to be no credible basis for this connection and they still have to be there; and that they are being sent to liberate these people from their brutal dictator, only to find the response, when that's done, is a brutal insurgency... and yet they still have to be there. These may be inconvient facts for people here who continue to support this fiasco, but I'd imagine at least some of the people who have to fight over there must think about these things now and then. And then it is topped off by repeated tours and Stop Loss measures.

[Yahoshua]

Personally I dont give a damn whether or not there were WMDs' there to begin with, Saddam should've been taken down the first time around.

But other than that I agree with everything else you've said.

And (I hope I'm not beating a dead-horse here) what's worse about this situation is that we (the U.S.) are stuck there in Iraq until they can stand on their own feet again. If we leave and Iraq collapses and becomes another terrorist haven, we've failed the purpose of having stayed longer than it was needed to destroy the former gov't. And a retreat at this point would completely destroy the morale of our troops rather than bloodying it through the prolonged stay we have now gotten stuck in.

In my opinion this is where the draft of prison inmates into Penal Batallions sounds really good to me. One step out of line and it's a bullet through the skull. Opens up room in the prisons, gets rid of any scumbags that society doesn't want, and will sure as hell straighten them out (or they can be kept in indefinitely if they dont).

[Iceman]

Excused?....Yes

He should be excused from further service to go to the nearest hospital, mental institution or jail...whichever is decided upon by his superiors.

Only on Earth...what a question.

That's as dumb as asking should I do good or evil?...it's all a matter of perpesctive and choice.

But I did vote for the Nazi's...they are behind it all .

[Skybird]

If we leave and Iraq collapses and becomes another terrorist haven,
If? Is. The war is lost, since longer. Get your people out of there. Nothing is left that could be acchieved. They are left in harm's way all for nothing, to protect the image of election-interested candidates who don't give a dime about their life or death, health or woundings, mental peace or inner destruction. Bush does not want to admit that he made terrible mistakes, and that is why the troops are still there. Mission Impossible.

[August]

If? Is. The war is lost, since longer. Get your people out of there. Nothing is left that could be acchieved. They are left in harm's way all for nothing, to protect the image of election-interested candidates who don't give a dime about their life or death, health or woundings, mental peace or inner destruction. Bush does not want to admit that he made terrible mistakes, and that is why the troops are still there. Mission Impossible.

Election interested candidates? Which ones would those be?

[Wim Libaers]

Do we get to eat the victims afterwords? I mean, it seems like a terrible waste of time to go around lining up people and shooting them for no reason if you're not going to eat them later. Sure the terrorists look tough but I've never seen one eat a fresh corpse. No one would dare oppose America if we went around eating our enemies, especially if our troops started eating random people. :hmm:


Eating your own species? There are serious health risks involved. :know:

[Yahoshua]

If the Iraqi gov't can stand on their opwn feet, perform insurgency ops and otherwise get their parliament off their ass and running the country. We win.

Destroying the insurgency is not our problem at the moment, it is getting the Iraqi gov't set up so they can replace us. And I seriously doubt that Iraq will be absolutely devoid of any U.S. presence. We're still in Germany and Japan.

[DeepSix]

Wish the poll had a simple "no". US Soldiers should never lose it like this, and never shoot children unless they are packing.

Right. My vote is "no."

[Konovalov]

On a side note to this discussion I was up at 1am here in the UK Wednesday morning and watched on tv The Factor (Fox News Channel), with its host Bill O'Reilly. One of the main segments was on the alleged Haditha massacre and O'Reilly had as guest Ret. Gen. Wesley Clarke. O'Reillys angle for this story is in trying to divert attention and play down this alleged incident in Iraq. In doing so he makes what I thought was a collossal gaff. In it he claimed that American GI's massacred German SS soldiers at Malmedy. I kid you not that is what he said. Now I've learned that this is actually the second time he has made such a ridiculous claim. View for yourself here the transcipt and more importantly the video from the segment from Tuesday which also feaures the first time he make the same false accusation:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606030002

You will also find that the Fox News transcipt does not reflect what Bill O'Reilly actually said. This is an absolute disgrace and O'Reilly should make a public apology. :nope: :nope:

[Onkel Neal]

O'Reilly has been on my "Ignore" list for several years. He's making noise to improve his ratings.

[micky1up]

it is not easy to train soliders to become killing machines then expect them to turn off instantly i do not condone the shootings but if the soldiers are prosecuted for their failings so should the commanders and all up the chain of command put yourself in their position and see how you would react what proves that the system works is that at least incidents like this are investigated and prosecuted in alot of modern countries this wouldnt happen france comitted many such action's in vietnam and angola and have never investigated or prosecuted any of there soldiers

[Skybird]

Strange. I somehow felt that France sooner or later would be mentioned and blamed in this thread. :hmm: I can only caution anyone to think that only those incidents took place that had been adressed with a regular examination. the first reflex of any kind of military is not to make such things known to the public, but to hide them. No matter what the nationality is.

[bradclark1]

It's been in the news that we are keeping soldiers on the line that have severe pych problems because of the shortage of troops. This will probably be used by the defence but will be ignored because that means it's a command problem and officers are very good at "Eating their young" (Means: Will sacrafice those under them to save their a$$).

[micky1up]

sky i didnt blame anyone i mentioned that the system works in the usa and the uk on this matter there are many old news site that can prove that other nations dont even bother investigating there own problems yet condem the us and uk for there actions, remember the charles mendez shooting in london well over a dozen similar shootings have occured in mendez's home country involving uk nationals not one have been investigated or prosecuted and certainly none of the families have been invited to come and talk to the leaders and critise the police on world wide broadcasts do you get my point