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

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[CB..]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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--

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--

[scandium]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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]

Originally Posted by scandium

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:

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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.

Originally Posted by scandium

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]

Originally Posted by 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:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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/mid...st/5039714.stm

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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..]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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