I wonder how much we don’t see.

[GQ_jumper 4]

If you have something to add, say it, but if your sticking around simply to start fight we'll be better off without.

Trent had an accurate definition that he found, whatever the source may have been i was just adding something else that he didn't mention. As you said before you have had more effect on the rules of warfare than i ever will, so i figured that would imply that you know that Trent was right.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Zenister 0]

no what i said was in response to

Quote

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT HAS BECOME OF OUR MILITARY. How dare you disrespect the men and women that volunteer to protect you, and fight for your freedom to bash them. There are people out there who serve a higher purpose in life than you ever will. If you hate our country and military so much than feel free to go somewhere else.

And since when are you a damn expert on the rules of engagement how do you know what they are. did you know that as you clear an objective you are allowed to shoot the wounded enemy soldiers before you pass by them so long as they are not trying to surrender, its in the geneva convention. don't talk about something you know nothing about.

If your so knowledgeable in the rules of engagemnet why don't you join the military and make a difference. Think you could make it?

this bit of nonsense... i'm going into my 11th year of military/government service, I've helped train more of our soldiers in more countries than you have any clue about.. Every single one of them is expected to know and uphold the US military standards of conduct, NOT some varient described in Wikipedia.....the integrity and honorable conduct of 'Wikipedia' is not at stake.....

have you SEEN this video in question? the Marines were investigating this instance before this video became news. Apparently they thought there was enough to warrant an investigation and this video clear shows a marine with some serious questions to answer....

yet somehow your trying to defend the apparent execution of an unarmed injured enemy?? how about you find the directive that have ever authorized that behavior on the part of the US military?

the definitions you use are very important....particularly in a conflict were we MUST keep ourselves separate from the means and morals employed by our enemy... if you think the US military should be adopting them from 'Wikipedia' well......and throwing away our legal and moral restraints on what are permissible means of War....

to stretch your imagination and understanding a bit, try to envision the outrage when/if the opposing scenario of this video is aired...... now imagine what your response would be to someone who was trying to argue that there “might be extenuating circumstances that we cant be aware of since we were not there” that somehow justified an insurgent execution of injured, unarmed American soldiers.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Are you seriously OK with US security contractors being tortured or executed by Iraqis? Or are only we allowed to do that?

Are security contractors legal combatants? Let's just use the definition I posted here before...
In Uniform: Some Are.
Openly Bearing Arms: Check.
Under Officers: Check.
Fighting According to Laws of War: Check.

So, at least some of them would be protected under the Geneva conventions. Others should know that they are not and judge their involvement accordingly. I'm sure they're aware of the risks.

So just to fit the narrow pigeonhole of a question:
Given that some of the security contractors do meet the Geneva requirements, those that do not should not expect treatment according to the conventions.

Here's the REALITY version of the answer (I know you like to avoid this):
Do you honestly think that for one second, any US soldier, contractor, or citizen captured by any Iraqi terrorist group would receive anything CLOSE to Geneva Convention treatment? If you think so, you're farther gone than I thought. I don't think any captured US soldier or civilian expects civil treatment, or even survival. And by the definitions listed before, I am okay with the US doing everything expected of them by the agreements they signed. Fortunately, not one of the people we're fighting are subject to those agreements... so the agreements cannot have been violated.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

Every single one of them is expected to know and uphold the US military standards of conduct, NOT some varient described in Wikipedia.....the integrity and honorable conduct of 'Wikipedia' is not at stake

Thanks for your service, but if you disagree with the definitions... why don't you provide us with THE definition. It appears that the definition I listed was applicable for the Geneva Conventions, not for any other purpose. Point being, if that definition for the Conventions is true, the Conventions cannot be violated in fighting terrorists in Iraq.

Quote

have you SEEN this video in question? the Marines were investigating this instance before this video became news. Apparently they thought there was enough to warrant an investigation and this video clear shows a marine with some serious questions to answer....

Yes, I've seen the video. How were the marines investigating this BEFORE it became news when the event occurred on the 12th (friday) and it was all over the news by the 15th (monday)? The investigation wasn't announced until the 16th (tuesday) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6496898/. Of course, since NBC sent this footage to every network on earth, including the reputable Al Jazeera... the military doesn't have much choice in investigating this.

Quote

yet somehow your trying to defend the apparent execution of an unarmed injured enemy?? how about you find the directive that have ever authorized that behavior on the part of the US military?

Since you clearly know more about "THE" rules than we do, find me where it says that if you're in fear for you life or of those in your unit that you can't use lethal force in a combat situation? Read the bottom of the article I posted above... 5 wounded and 1 killed when investigating a body.

Quote

the definitions you use are very important....particularly in a conflict were we MUST keep ourselves separate from the means and morals employed by our enemy... if you think the US military should be adopting them from 'Wikipedia' well......and throwing away our legal and moral restraints on what are permissible means of War....

Like I said before, you give us THE definition because the one I listed pertained to the Geneva convention. Understand that.

Quote

to stretch your imagination and understanding a bit, try to envision the outrage when/if the opposing scenario of this video is aired...... now imagine what your response would be to someone who was trying to argue that there “might be extenuating circumstances that we cant be aware of since we were not there” that somehow justified an insurgent execution of injured, unarmed American soldiers.

IMAGINE my disgust at a video of the terrorists not following rules???? I don't have to... when have they EVER followed any rules of moral or even human decency? To point at an opposite situation like you do, I say this: If the US had a practice of boobytrapping bodies, suicide attacks, and wanton disregard for any life... it'd be hard to blame an Iraqi for doing the same. I'd still be pissed that a US soldier was killed.

Oh, hello again!

[Zenister 0]

oh now i see... the failure of our enemy to follow any recognized, honorable means of combat entitles us to adopt any means nessesary to defeat them, including the execution of injured, unarmed combatants..



directly from the GC... of course I suppose you'll still argue that we dont have to follow it because they arent... does that make rape, torture and looting OK too???

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Quote

Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

unless of course its easier to shoot them since they might be faking dead and clearly dont have their hands up....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-11-15-marine-shooting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Quote

On the video, as the camera moved into the mosque Saturday, a Marine can be heard shouting obscenities in the background, yelling that one of the men was only pretending to be dead.

"He's (expletive) faking he's dead!"

"Yeah, he's breathing," another Marine is heard saying.

"He's faking he's (expletive) dead!" the first Marine says.

The video then showed a Marine raising his rifle toward an Iraqi lying on the floor of the mosque. The video shown by NBC and provided to the network pool was blacked out at that point and did not show the bullet hitting the man. But a rifle shot could be heard.

"He's dead now," a Marine is heard saying.

The blacked out portion of the videotape, provided later to Associated Press Television News and other members of the network pool, showed the bullet striking the first man in the upper body, possibly the head. His blood splatters on the wall behind him and his body goes limp.

It is unclear from the footage whether the body was moving before the shot. The only movement that can be seen is the body flinching at the impact of the bullets. Sites' report said the slain man didn't appear to be armed or threatening in any way, and there were no arms visible in the room.

The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another man lying motionless. But one of the Marines steps back as the man stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The Marines did not open fire on the man.

Sites reported that a Marine in the same unit had been killed a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.

NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the wounded combatant had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.................


They are asked by an approaching Marine lieutenant if there were insurgents inside and if the Marines had shot any of them. A Marine can be heard responding affirmatively. The lieutenant then asks if they were armed, and the Marine shrugs.

you dont see a possible problem here???

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you seriously OK with US security contractors being tortured or executed by Iraqis? Or are only we allowed to do that?

Are security contractors legal combatants? Let's just use the definition I posted here before...
In Uniform: Some Are.
Openly Bearing Arms: Check.
Under Officers: Check.
Fighting According to Laws of War: Check.

So, at least some of them would be protected under the Geneva conventions. Others should know that they are not and judge their involvement accordingly. I'm sure they're aware of the risks.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/maxwell.pdf one opinon

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm LOTS more reading....

of course apparently in the opinions of some in the SC none of it applies, as our enemies refusal to fight honorably relieves us of any obligation or pretense at honorable conduct as well....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Trent 0]

Quote

oh now i see... the failure of our enemy to follow any recognized, honorable means of combat entitles us to adopt any means nessesary to defeat them, including the execution of injured, unarmed combatants..

No, but what do the rules say about injured or wounded enemies who continue to pose a threat to our forces, or are believed to pose a continued threat... as in the case of a wounded enemy with his finger on a detonator for the soldiers who attempt to adhere to the law and aid him? This is the gray line we are arguing here, and I see it from the perspective that the burden of proving that an injured or surrendering enemy is indeed done taking an active part in the hostilities lies with the enemy. Of course, my opinion is solely based on the reality that exists in fighting the unconventional forces we see in Iraq.

Quote

directly from the GC... of course I suppose you'll still argue that we dont have to follow it because they arent... does that make rape, torture and looting OK too???
[...GC Quote...]
unless of course its easier to shoot them since they might be faking dead and clearly dont have their hands up....

No, I never said it justified looting or raping. Where do you get your extreme distortions of the argument? Again, like I just said... in reality there are cases when people that may fall under GC protections clearly do NOT, since they are NOT clearly disengaged from the hostilities (blowing yourself up while wounded, etc.).

You'd rather we lose 100s of soldiers trying to approach wounded terrorists to frisk them to confirm that they are indeed out of action, while I prefer the possible occasional "mistake" made by our soldiers being cautious. Again, in a war, by definition the lives of "our side" are more valuable than the lives of the enemy.

RE: your transcript of the video... which I've seen, since its been aired pretty much all over the world. I see a soldier who is afraid that someone may still pose a threat, and based on events of the previous days... has a reason to believe so. If the man was indeed not a threat at all, then the soldier will have to live with what he did, just as anyone who takes a life either in hostile action or otherwise will have to live with it.

The first link in your second post was interesting (the PDF file), and it seemed to agree with the Wikipedia definition of "enemy combatant". Otherwise, it focuses on the inclusion of non-military civilians on our side, focusing on the consequences as if we were fighting someone who also tried to adhere to the laws of war. It basically says that contractors ARE at risk and the employers should know that as well as the individual contractors.

The second link was not working when I checked it.

My turn to ask a question. If the situation had been that a Marine shot an apparently injured and unarmed person in a definite battle zone where hostilities were continuing, what would your opinion be if it were later found that the victim was concealing a explosive vest? Since the Marine did not KNOW that he was concealing a weapon at the time, would he still be a murderer as you see him today? Or would you be here calling him a murderer who just got lucky?

Oh, hello again!

[GQ_jumper 4]

So let me get this straight, just because the Marines have opened an investigation that means he is automatically guilty. I'm glad that there was an investigation started, that goes to show that the US is making an effort to uphold the articles of the geneva conventions. but that does not automatically mean that he is guilty. last time i checked we are in a country where one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. so give the man the benifit of the doubt in believing that he didn't wake up one morning saying to himself i'm gonna kill an innocent today, do you really think this man looked at the situation and said i'm gonna do the wrong thing, no, he did what he felt he had to.

and i do understand that even though the terrorists don't fall under the protections of the geneva conventions we are still expected to act by them so don't even try and throw that one at me. But let me clear something up, just because someone doesn't meet the criteria of a legal combatant does not mean that we cannot kill them. read my previous post about hhostile noncombatants. regardless of what the geneva conventions states we are always givne the right to self defense. anyone is given that right on both sides, so if i feel my life is threatened i'm authorized the use of deadly force to protect it, while in a combat environment at least, and this is not just my opinion, it came directly from the mouth of a JAG officer who gave me a legal brief before a deployment.

and let me state one last time that as you are clearing an objective you are authorized to shoot those presumed to be dead, to ensure you don't get hit from behind, as well as those who are pretending to be dead, for the same reason, once you cross the objective they become POW's.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm

Marines shoot insurgent who was 'playing dead'
The US military says marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead, a week after footage of a marine killing an apparently unarmed and wounded Iraqi caused a stir in the region.

"Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent who while faking dead opened fire on the marines who were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets," a military statement said.

The point-blank shooting on November 13 of a wounded Iraqi was caught on tape and beamed around the world.

It raised questions about the degree of military restraint and fanned Arab resentment.

The marine was withdrawn from combat and an investigation launched.

Military sources had said that the rules of engagement were looser during the operation launched in Fallujah, for fear that rebels would be disguised, fake death or wear suicide explosives belts.

The US military and Iraqi government troops are still carrying house-to-house searches in the rebel bastion but two weeks after it was launched, the largest post-Saddam military operation in Iraq is all but over.

According to US military figures, more than 1,200 insurgents have been killed in the intense fighting, as well as 51 US troops and eight Iraqi personnel.

---------------------------------------------------------

This "insurgent" was faking. Looks like they were luckier this time

[Zenister 0]

Quote

So let me get this straight, just because the Marines have opened an investigation that means he is automatically guilty.

no. of course not... nor does the fact he is a US marine make him innocent....

you really need to check on the circumstance surrounding this incident... the objective was already cleared..by your own reasoning they already had POW status... what we have is an apparent failure of discipline.. the reasons.. panic, grief, anger etc.. are irrelevant, only the action remains..only the action will be seen by the rest of the world and only by our ACTIONS will we be judged...

yes, that does mean we must take risks that expose our troops to 'dishonorable' tactics and the additional dangers thus created, and yes it means we must accept the loses that disadvantage incurs to protect the honor conduct and integrity of our armed forces..

'thinking' and 'feeling' you are threatened is meaningless if the investigation shows you were in fact not......

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1248394.htm

Marines shoot insurgent who was 'playing dead'
The US military says marines in Fallujah have shot and killed an insurgent who engaged them as he was faking being dead...

if the Marine in the previous instance had behaved similarly, we wouldnt be having this discussion... and our enemies wouldnt have another powerful piece of propaganda to use against us...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 3,006]

>So, at least some of them would be protected under the Geneva
>conventions.

And some would not be. Since you didn't answer the question before, I'll answer it for you and assume that you are NOT OK with US contractors being shot just because they weren't wearing the correct uniform. In other words, disobeying the Geneva convention is NOT grounds for either side to kill prisoners.

>Do you honestly think that for one second, any US soldier,
> contractor, or citizen captured by any Iraqi terrorist group would
> receive anything CLOSE to Geneva Convention treatment?

Some have; some have been released without harm. But for any given person taken prisoner by insurgents, I wouldn't expect them to receive fair treatment - I'd expect them to be tortured or shot. That does not mean it's OK for us to do that to them. We should be better than the insurgents. Just because Saddam was a killer/torturer/rapist doesn't excuse us when we do those things. If you think it does - well, you believe in a different USA than I do.

[Trent 0]

Try not to answer questions for me next time. I did answer your question, albeit in a long-winded manner.

No one should be "okay" with civilians or soldiers being shot or tortured unnecessarily. However, you cannot claim that someone is guilty of violating the Geneva Conventions if the "victim" is not protected under them. Case in point... the guy that was not dead in the Mosque.

If you'd taken the time to read what I said in my responses to Zenister you'd have saved your typing for my more recent posts in here. SINCE we've seen injured and seemingly dead terrorists attack our troops, I do not see a problem with our troops being cautious in these scenarios. Have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their ranks and themselves to get a last shot in at our guys, they are still a threat until they make it abundantly clear that they do not intend harm. If our troops had adopted the practice of blowing up our dead, and our wounded blowing themselves up, I would expect the terrorists to not trust an injured, surrendering, or dead US troop either. And by the way, the Iraqi in the tape was not a prisoner since he was not in US custody, and was definitely a potential threat.

Quote

We should be better than the insurgents. Just because Saddam was a killer/torturer/rapist doesn't excuse us when we do those things. If you think it does - well, you believe in a different USA than I do.

I believe in a USA that, once involved in a conflict, does its best to win. That means dying less. That means adapting to combat the unconventional tactics of the terrorists. Any US soldier torturing excessively, raping, or executing prisoners in US custody should and most likely will be tried and I agree that they should. We ARE better than the enemy we're fighting. We do not hide behind civilians, decapitate civilians, store our hardware in mosques, deliberately target civilians in terror attacks. We can be better than the enemy all day and lose the war. Learning enemy tactics from prior engagements, and proactively combating them is not stooping to their level... it's protecting our troops' lives. You've lost sight at how much difference there is between the two sides.

This isn't just a personal debate between you and me, Bill. Go read what others have said.

AND SINCE no one replied to my question, I'll ask again... and it brings this back to the subject.

If the situation had been that a Marine shot an apparently injured and unarmed person in a definite battle zone where hostilities were continuing, what would your opinion be if it were later found that the victim was concealing a explosive vest? Since the Marine did not KNOW that he was concealing a weapon at the time, would he still be a murderer as you see him today? Or would you be here calling him a murderer who just got lucky?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,006]

>I believe in a USA that, once involved in a conflict, does its best to
>win. That means dying less.

No; we could do that right now by leaving, but that would not accomplish our political goals. One problem we have now is that "winning" is poorly defined. What is it? Originally it was disarming Saddam, except it turns out there wasn't anything to disarm (except for a lot of conventional munitions and explosives that we seem to have misplaced.) Then it became liberating the people of Iraq from the torture chambers and prisons - at least until we reopened them.

So now we're there; it's too late to wish we hadn't attacked or made better decisions after we attacked. We're there and we have to deal with the situation, which isn't getting any better. Everyone said that attacks would increase until they declared sovereignty, then they'd die off. Didn't happen. Now they are saying the same thing will happen by election day. That's not likely to be much more successful. So what does winning mean? A ten year war, where we lose 'only' 5000 US troops but the insurgents lose 40,000? Staying until there is peace in Iraq? (that means we will be there forever; we're breeding terrrorists like rats.) Staying until the next civil war? You can't win until you understand what winning means.

>We ARE better than the enemy we're fighting.

Then we act that way. No excuses.

>We can be better than the enemy all day and lose the war. Learning
>enemy tactics from prior engagements, and proactively combating
>them is not stooping to their level... it's protecting our troops' lives.

I agree with all that, as long as "proactively combating them" isn't a euphemism for shooting wounded unconscious prisoners.

>You've lost sight at how much difference there is between the two sides.

Sometimes I think I'm the only one who realizes that we _are_ the good guys, the guys who (usually) don't rape prisoners or put electrodes on them or shoot them because they're trying not to move. Everyone else seems to be saying "Hey, we don't have to be any better than Saddam; why should we be?" And that's insulting to our troops in the field. 99.99% of our soldiers in the field _are_ better than terrorists; our time would be better spent supporting them than making excuses for the other .01%.

>If the situation had been that a Marine shot an apparently injured
>and unarmed person in a definite battle zone where hostilities were
> continuing, what would your opinion be if it were later found that the
> victim was concealing a explosive vest?

Same. It doesn't matter if he is later found to have a gun in his jacket, or explosives in his pocket, or a radio that might let him communicate with someone else. If a soldier thinks someone is wounded and unarmed, and he shoots him, then he faces the appropriate penalty.

What's the result of this? You might see soldiers die when Iraqis trick them. (Should be no suprise since we DO see soldiers die.) Why is this OK? Because everything comes at a price, and that includes taking the high road. Shooting everyone who might have explosives is the easy way out; heck, every 9 year old kid in Baghdad might have explosives. But since we are the US, we take the high road and give them the benefit of the doubt - because we are better than terrorists, and are willing to pay the price to stay that way.

The time to decide we were not OK with soldiers dying was 18 months ago. Now we're there. More soliders will die before it's over. We will pay the price we need to pay to not become like Saddam, or we will lose no matter what the outcome of the Iraq conflict.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

So let me get this straight, just because the Marines have opened an investigation that means he is automatically guilty.

Quote

no. of course not... nor does the fact he is a US marine make him innocent....

>>I have never said that he is innocent simply because he is a marine<<

Quote

you really need to check on the circumstance surrounding this incident... the objective was already cleared..by your own reasoning they already had POW status... what we have is an apparent failure of discipline.. the reasons.. panic, grief, anger etc.. are irrelevant, only the action remains..only the action will be seen by the rest of the world and only by our ACTIONS will we be judged...

>>i have never heard anyone state that the objective was cleared, and you know what i don't need the news to tell me either way, it was apparent that the objective was not cleared when in the video people were still walking around with their weapons at the high ready. If the objective had already been cleared then they would have already found that the man was still alive.<<

Quote

yes, that does mean we must take risks that expose our troops to 'dishonorable' tactics and the additional dangers thus created, and yes it means we must accept the loses that disadvantage incurs to protect the honor conduct and integrity of our armed forces..

>>So you would rather see our troops die because they didn't want to do something "questionable" to protect themselves. I'm sorry but even though i am sworn to uphold the principles of the geneva conventions, and fight by the values that we in the US believe in, my first loyalty is to my team, and I'll be damned if i'm going to let one of my teammates kids grow up without a father because i took the time to think "what would geneva do" before i acted to protect them.<<

Quote

'thinking' and 'feeling' you are threatened is meaningless if the investigation shows you were in fact not......

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Botellines 0]

Quote

And by the way, the Iraqi in the tape was not a prisoner since he was not in US custody,

Well, usually prisoners are kept alive, not shoot at the first chance.

[rickjump1 0]

Kevin Sites, a freelancer on assignment for NBC is the NBC correspondent who filmed the shooting. His discription of the event: http://www.kevinsites.net

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Trent 0]

Try reading the thread before throwing in your 2 cents. They weren't prisoners.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

No; we could do that right now by leaving, but that would not accomplish our political goals. One problem we have now is that "winning" is poorly defined. What is it?.... etc etc

Show me how to win a war by dying more. You also didn't read closely, again. I said "I believe in a USA that, once involved in a conflict, does its best to win. That means dying less." Sure we could die less by never fighting at all. But then you'd be bitching about how we don't do enough to help rid the world of bad guys. This is a different argument than the thread is about anyway, Bill, but I know you like to always get back to "NO WAR FOR OIL, US OUT OF IRAQ!!" So have fun.

Quote

You can't win until you understand what winning means.

Enlighten us, great thinker!

Quote

>We ARE better than the enemy we're fighting.

Then we act that way. No excuses.

We DO act that way, people like you chose to expound on events like the recent video and Abu Ghraib and try to apply it to the whole of our armed forces. That's the Stockholm/Al-Jazeera syndrome getting to you. A soldier in the field making the split second decision to kill someone who they feel may pose a direct threat to them or their unit is their own decision. Try to armchair quarterback that all you want.

Quote

I agree with all that, as long as "proactively combating them" isn't a euphemism for shooting wounded unconscious prisoners.

Prisoner? Where?

Quote

Sometimes I think I'm the only one who realizes that we _are_ the good guys, the guys who (usually) don't rape prisoners or put electrodes on them or shoot them because they're trying not to move.

No, you seem to think that we're the bad guys and you're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy than to our troops.

Quote

Everyone else seems to be saying "Hey, we don't have to be any better than Saddam; why should we be?"

Am I saying that? Nope. I'm saying this Marine did what he thought was right at the time. In light of recent events, he had reason to worry that injured or terrorists faking injury could still pose a threat.

Quote

Same. It doesn't matter if he is later found to have a gun in his jacket, or explosives in his pocket, or a radio that might let him communicate with someone else. If a soldier thinks someone is wounded and unarmed, and he shoots him, then he faces the appropriate penalty.

Good, Bill. Way to change the context of the question. How about if the soldier thinks the wounded terrorist still poses a threat? No one here, besides you assumes the soldier wanted to kill someone that day and just chose that "innocent" victim.

You're right about one thing though... we could have let Iraq lie and not lost any soldiers over the last 18 months. People thought it was more dangerous to do that, and now we're there. That isn't going to change, so accept it and talk about the situation at hand. We're involved in irregular combat with an irregular enemy. People like you want to put our troops in handcuffs. That has been proven not to work. There is a difference between letting the military do its job the best it can and unleashing a genocidal killing spree. You don't think it can be done and you're going to piss your pants every time NBC and Al-Jazeera show a dead terrorist wondering if he was killed "appropriately". Meanwhile, the troops will be doing the best they can to reach their objectives while making sure they lose as few friends as possible. The way that is done, is to eliminate any perceived immediate threats.

I'll continue to believe our troops are the good guys and that they DON'T shoot injured people as a rule. You continue to believe the opposite.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,006]

>Show me how to win a war by dying more.

?? That's how it's done. You storm the capital, lose some troops, but gain the objective. Did we win WWII? Did we lose more troops even after D-day?

The trick is not dying _too_much.

>Enlighten us, great thinker!

To be completely literal about it, we can't win per the original objective, because we went into this war with an objective we could not achieve (locating and controlling Saddam's WMD arsenal.) So what's the definition now? How do we win? Who's going to sign a cease-fire? Who's going to surrender? Do we do a weapons surrender thing? We did that; it didn't work. So we need a goal before we can decide what winning means.

>We DO act that way. . .

For the most part, yes.

>A soldier in the field making the split second decision to kill someone who
>they feel may pose a direct threat to them or their unit is their own decision.

Right. And if they screwed up (as determined by the people qualified to make that decision, not you or I) they will be penalized accordingly.

>No, you seem to think that we're the bad guys and you're more willing
>to give the benefit of the doubt to the enemy than to our troops.

We are the good guys, and I don't have much tolerance for people who say "hey, it's really hard to be the good guys, so sometimes we have to be like Hussein to win." That leads to Abu Ghraib, and that's not what 'the good guys' do - no matter how much you try to twist the definition.

>People like you want to put our troops in handcuffs.

And people like you want them to become terrorists to beat the terrorists. I will never agree with that. The reason we are better than terrorists is that we DON'T shoot wounded unarmed people in the head, we DON'T torture them, we DON'T rape them, we DON'T commit genocide.

>You don't think it can be done and you're going to piss your pants
> every time NBC and Al-Jazeera show a dead terrorist wondering if he
> was killed "appropriately".

I don't care about the dead terrorists. I do care that we've killed 7000 innocent people so far. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war. But as soon as we're OK with shooting wounded people in the head because they might be terrorists, then we're well on our way to being as bad as they are.

This isn't just some vauge moral thing. There is no way we will ever win in any sense of the word in Iraq if the people there become convinced that the US is there to kill Iraqis rather than terrorists; every patriotic Iraqi there will resist us. To prevent that from happening we have to not kill innocent Iraqis. In the short run that will mean more US troops dead, because they have to give the wounded guy the benefit of the doubt even if it means exposing troops to more risk. In the long run it will mean a massive reduction in US troops killed. Making it clear to Iraqis that we are NOT there to kill everyone will go a long way towards ending this war.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Try reading the thread before throwing in your 2 cents. They weren't prisoners.

Exactly, he was shot in the head before he could be made prisoner.

[Trent 0]

Quote

>Show me how to win a war by dying more.

?? That's how it's done. You storm the capital, lose some troops, but gain the objective. Did we win WWII? Did we lose more troops even after D-day?

That's not what I meant and you know it. It's infuriating that you repeatedly do that, Bill. Show me how to win a war by dying more than the enemy.

Quote

>A soldier in the field making the split second decision to kill someone who
>they feel may pose a direct threat to them or their unit is their own decision.

Right. And if they screwed up (as determined by the people qualified to make that decision, not you or I) they will be penalized accordingly.

And if the Marine did indeed kill that man for the sake of killing him, good riddance. He will pay for the rest of his life and after. I, however, am going to give our soldier the benefit of the doubt first.

Quote

We are the good guys, and I don't have much tolerance for people who say "hey, it's really hard to be the good guys, so sometimes we have to be like Hussein to win." That leads to Abu Ghraib, and that's not what 'the good guys' do - no matter how much you try to twist the definition.

When did I say that, Bill? I have as little tolerance for people who try to but words in my mouth just to further their argument.

Quote

>People like you want to put our troops in handcuffs.

And people like you want them to become terrorists to beat the terrorists. I will never agree with that. The reason we are better than terrorists is that we DON'T shoot wounded unarmed people in the head, we DON'T torture them, we DON'T rape them, we DON'T commit genocide.

I see now that you're only going to Michael Moore-ize my posts to get them to say something that you can get up in arms about. Did you forget to read the entire paragraph you quoted? Here it is again for you.

Quote

We're involved in irregular combat with an irregular enemy. People like you want to put our troops in handcuffs. That has been proven not to work. There is a difference between letting the military do its job the best it can and unleashing a genocidal killing spree. You don't think it can be done and you're going to piss your pants every time NBC and Al-Jazeera show a dead terrorist wondering if he was killed "appropriately". Meanwhile, the troops will be doing the best they can to reach their objectives while making sure they lose as few friends as possible. The way that is done, is to eliminate any perceived immediate threats.

But nice selective thinking for you...

Quote

I don't care about the dead terrorists. I do care that we've killed 7000 innocent people so far. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war. But as soon as we're OK with shooting wounded people in the head because they might be terrorists, then we're well on our way to being as bad as they are.

What part are you not getting??? If we wanted to wipe out an entire city that "might be terrorists" do you think for one second that we would be in there fighting house to house? What part of allowing our troops to eliminate probable threats in an active combat zone saves their lives do you not understand?

Quote

There is no way we will ever win in any sense of the word in Iraq if the people there become convinced that the US is there to kill Iraqis rather than terrorists; every patriotic Iraqi there will resist us. To prevent that from happening we have to not kill innocent Iraqis.

Ahhh, 2 interesting things here. One, the arab world will never be convinced we are there to help with Al-Jazeera tearing apart our troops and propagandizing at every chance. Do you think Al-Jazeera would report that we were really the good guys if we did everything that you want us to do to fight a "nice" war? I bet not.

The second interesting thing in that quote is your definition of an "innocent" Iraqi. Apparently the terrorist killed by the marine became an innocent Iraqi once it suited your purpose. The guys in that mosque were not innocent civilians by any means. Go read.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,006]

>Show me how to win a war by dying more than the enemy.

In the Vietnam War, we lost 60,000 US soldiers, and 2 million Viet Cong died. Who won that one?

>And if the Marine did indeed kill that man for the sake of killing him,
> good riddance. He will pay for the rest of his life and after. I, however,
> am going to give our soldier the benefit of the doubt first.

I am too. Neither one of us was there.

>Ahhh, 2 interesting things here. One, the arab world will never be
> convinced we are there to help with Al-Jazeera tearing apart our troops
> and propagandizing at every chance.

Not all arabs are as dumb as you think. Most people in the US realize that news sources can be biased; they look at more than one source. Arabs are no different. If we treat the innocent Arabs in Iraq well, they will realize it - and our job will become ten times easier.

>Do you think Al-Jazeera would report that we were really the good guys
>if we did everything that you want us to do to fight a "nice" war?

No more than FOX News would report that the war was going poorly. Every source has their bias; in some cases (like Al Jazeera) the bias is so extreme that they're more entertainment than news.

>The second interesting thing in that quote is your definition of an
> "innocent" Iraqi. Apparently the terrorist killed by the marine became an
> innocent Iraqi once it suited your purpose.

?? Didn't we agree above that neither one of us was going to judge this guy? I stand by my statement that we can't kill innocent Iraqis by the ton and win the war - and if it turns out this guy DID kill an innocent Iraqi for no good reason, then throw the book at him.

>The guys in that mosque were not innocent civilians by any means.

You were not there, and any assumption you make on the guilt or innocence of the people there is just that - an assumption made to win an argument. I suspect you realize this.

[Trent 0]

Quote

In the Vietnam War, we lost 60,000 US soldiers, and 2 million Viet Cong died. Who won that one?

The Viet Cong did not. They were all but eliminated during the Tet offensive. The NVA reaped the benefits of the US withdrawal, after sacrificing the VC and after our military was put in handcuffs by politicians who think amazingly similarly to you.

Quote

Not all arabs are as dumb as you think.

I hope that's the last time you accuse me of being a racist or prejudiced.

Quote

You were not there, and any assumption you make on the guilt or innocence of the people there is just that - an assumption made to win an argument. I suspect you realize this.

Even the reporter that filmed the incident claimed that the iraqis in the mosque were wounded terrorists.

Oh, hello again!

[EricTheRed 0]

Just a note that those arguing on both sides here should go to www.kevinsites.net and read what the photographer who filmed this event has to say.

illegible usually