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

[jumpy]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.