I wonder how much we don’t see.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

to bad.. once it exists it WILL be exploited.. in the near future, every action by the majority of soldiers will be scrutinized post conflict for AAR and war crime purposes... this WILL become a fact of military life, one that modern soldiers will have to learn to deal with and to modify/adjust behaviors, that while combat effective, may constitute war crimes when under review..

Like I said, that's great. However, it doesn't need to be a live feed to CNN.

true, but it is silly to pretend that those feeds will not make it into the hands of the media.... of course they will... some intentionally so... and War as a 'spectator sport' will be the next revolution in military affairs...

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

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Someone in our position shouldn't second guess either way......................
.............We shouldn’t have seen this footage in the first place and shouldn’t even be talking about it at this point"

That was a good post Pajarito, thanks.

Zen:-"War as a 'spectator sport' will be the next revolution in military affairs..."

I think it already is. We saw the start in Gulf War I, and we have now become accustomed to it, nay, in some cases we have created the market for it. How many people sat up 'watching the war' here? In fact a whole heap of people on this very forum were providing a running commentary here, gleefully describing the progress.

Are there any taboos left?

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

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

If the elected Iraqui government tells us to leave and we do not, THEN we are an occupying force.

And as always, you twist your words to make the coalition forces look as bad as possible

That si the lamest arguement I have seen in this thread -
you change the rules now that we are in there. So the government must be 'elected' in order for us to be an occupying force? We invaded a sovereign country that had NO WMD's and NO ties to terrorism or 9/11.

Now we state that an 'elected government' must disapporve of our position? What about all the citizens of the country that are fighting us?

Oh that's right! We stopped calling them insurgents and started callign them terrorists, even though they were no such thing PRIOR to us invading.

We change the rules again, now that we are there.

You forget that we should never have been there in the first place. You cannot do the WRONG thing, then justify everything else you do based on that p[remise. It is faulty logic from the start.

We have VERY HIGH moral obligations. When you kill a civilian, I will guarantee you that the friends and families of those victims are no longer our friends. They do not care about democracy, they just hate you.

So in fact we are buildign more enemies than we are creating - not just in Iraq, but all over the world.

Want to do this right? Go back 13 years and we should have finished the job then, it would have been justified and supported by the rest of the world. Too late to go in there now on some set of lies presented to the world in 2003.

Support our troops? You bet! By bringing them home and getting the hell out of the rat-hole we created.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

In my mind everyone over there is a hero, people make mistakes, and sometimes the wrong decisions(please don't take this as me referring to what that marine did as a mistake or wrong decision, i still support what he did), but just because one bad thing happened that doesn't erase all of the other good things that have been done.

Americans sleep soundly in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I support the soldiers, just like I support the police, but they still need to be held responsible when they murder and torture - it simply is not right.

If you sleep soundly, knowing that your government is OK with torture and murder, then there is something very disturbing with that.

I sleep soundly knowing that a competent police department (at least in my town), takes the time to stop and see what we do, looks after my neighborhood, drives by often, and does a great job.

I would not sleep soundly knowing that they use a taser on a six year old, or beat up people in their custody. or worse, is willing to gun down someone with a cell phone. I would be very concerned the next time I got pulled over for anything and what might happen.

Same rules apply to our soldiers. Just because you cannot see it, does not make it right. At some point, all those people are coming home. Some will become the security guards, enforcement officers, police, and continue to be the military to 'watch over you'

What standard do you want them to hold then? Do you think they can just turn that on and off at will?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That si the lamest arguement I have seen in this thread - you change the rules now that we are in there. So the government must be 'elected' in order for us to be an occupying force? We invaded a sovereign country that had NO WMD's and NO ties to terrorism or 9/11.

What, we are supposed to pack up and leave the first time one single person says "I don't want you here" ? C'mon back down to the REAL world, TK.

Quote

Now we state that an 'elected government' must disapporve of our position? What about all the citizens of the country that are fighting us?

Same as above - we're supposed to pack up and go home on the authority of any guy off the street over there? Nope, sorry, don't think so.

Quote

Oh that's right! We stopped calling them insurgents and started callign them terrorists, even though they were no such thing PRIOR to us invading.

We change the rules again, now that we are there.

Terrorist training camps in Iraq and surrounding areas, supported and funded by SH among others. Ever heard the phrase "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"?

Quote

You forget that we should never have been there in the first place. You cannot do the WRONG thing, then justify everything else you do based on that premise. It is faulty logic from the start.

Your opinion.

Quote

We have VERY HIGH moral obligations. When you kill a civilian, I will guarantee you that the friends and families of those victims are no longer our friends. They do not care about democracy, they just hate you.

True, and has been true throughout history - your point is? I imagine the citizens of Carthage weren't exactly thrilled with Rome, either.

Quote

So in fact we are buildign more enemies than we are creating - not just in Iraq, but all over the world.

And your answer is what? Go back to the policies of 12 years ago and ignore/appease the terrorists? I'd say September 11 should've convinced everyone with half a brain of the futility of THAT strategy - but maybe not.

Quote

Want to do this right? Go back 13 years and we should have finished the job then, it would have been justified and supported by the rest of the world. Too late to go in there now on some set of lies presented to the world in 2003.

Agreed. Too bad Bush Sr. listened to the rest of the world and agreed to stop where he did.

Quote

Support our troops? You bet! By bringing them home and getting the hell out of the rat-hole we created.

Whose troops? You're damn sure not improving the morale of any of OUR troops...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GQ_jumper 4]

sorry but i dont want anyone 'fighting for me' who is incapable of NOT engaging an unarmed combatant, and who [I]appears[/I] to execute with such callous disregard, the US military does not teach such values and if they are becoming common to the soldiers engaged in the current conflict, we are in a great deal of trouble.....

engaging an unarmed combatant, unarmed combatant... let's look at that word one more time, COMBATANT!! Rules of engagement were drastically changed during somalia in 1993, when the Rangers found themselves being engaged by shooters laying in the middle of the street with unarmed people standing over them. Until then you were unable to shoot the unarmed people because they did not pose a direct threat to you. but after shooters like this started causing casualties the rules were changed to allow the Rangers to engage the unarmed people. The term given to such people was hostile non-combatants. Anyone who is directly helping those who are engaging you is fair game whether armed or not(while in a firefight). so armed or not a combatant is a combatant. so basically by calling that man a combatant you contradicted yourself. When a firefight kicks up anyone not involved heads for the hills, anyone still in the area is looking for trouble. So if there was a man in that building, a building that the Marines had been taking fire from and there was someone in there when they entered the building, they were there for a reason, if he was innocent why would he have been playing dead, the innocents always made sure it was known they were innocent by putting their hands up or indicating that they were unarmed and did not want to fight.

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

[crozby 0]

Changing the subject a bit, does anyone know how many iraqi insurgents were taken prisoner during this action in Faluja?

I was wondering if it was (unofficial) policy to kill all insurgents that were encountered.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Oh that's right! We stopped calling them insurgents and started callign them terrorists, even though they were no such thing PRIOR to us invading.

The fedayeen existed in iraq before we invaded, in fact they were a part of the government, they were the secret police that would find people who didn't like SH and would torture and kill their families.

Last time i checked a terrorist is someone who kills innocents to further their cause.

and now there are people detonating bombs in places where there are no soldiers, it happens all the time in baghdad, that is a terrorist act. they kill iraqis that help the americans, or hold jobs for the coalition, they kill relief workers who are there to simply help people.

Insurgents and terrorists can be the same thing, an insurgent is just someone who comes in from another country to fight

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Last time i checked a terrorist is someone who kills innocents to further their cause.

Or you call them collateral damage, whichever definition suits you best.

You in general.

[Zenister 0]

your definitions need some serious work... and you still havent answered the real question.

Q:as a soldier would you care to elaborate on a circumstance where you believe you’d be justified in shooting an unarmed opponent in the back of the head (as all evidence we have to date shows)

Quote

if he were innocent why was he playing dead?

maybe he didnt want to be shot again. "he didnt have his hands up" is not grounds for execution........ sounds like you REALLY need to review the Rules of Warfare again.. and talk to your leadership about some of the actions you seem to be advocating for soldiers..

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

[billvon 3,006]

>Last time i checked a terrorist is someone who kills innocents to further their cause.

No, a terrorist is someone who kills someone we _like_ to further their cause. When we funded the Mujahideen to kill innocent Russians for us, they were freedom fighters. The contras - freedom fighters.

>and now there are people detonating bombs in places where there are
>no soldiers, it happens all the time in baghdad, that is a terrorist act.

I think you need a better definition. We've bombed weddings where there were no soldiers; does that make us terrorists? We killed 350,000 innocent people in Japan with two nuclear bombs; does that make us terrorists? Usually people claim that if you have a good reason to do something like that (i.e. ending the war in Japan faster) it's not terrorism.

[GQ_jumper 4]

if i thought a man was still an active threat, i feel i'd be justified in shooting him.

if you look closely at the video you will also notice a bunch of clutter around the man that was shot, the Marine could have felt that there was a weapon hidden somewhere in there that the man was getting ready to use against him.

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

[GQ_jumper 4]

>>sounds like you REALLY need to review the Rules of Warfare again.. and talk to your leadership about some of the actions you seem to be advocating for soldiers..

[GQ_jumper 4]

If you sleep soundly, knowing that your government is OK with torture and murder, then there is something very disturbing with that.

our government doesn't condone murder and torture, that is why the guards at abu gharib were punished for their actions, and that is why this Marine is being investigated, to determine whether or not he was right in doing what he did

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

[Unstable 9]

Quote

if you look closely at the video you will also notice a bunch of clutter around the man that was shot, the Marine could have felt that there was a weapon hidden somewhere in there that the man was getting ready to use against him.

I agree completely. The News networks that have aired this video again and again conveniently have edited this video to fit their liberal agenda.
These insurgents have been known, again and again, to fake death and shoot our guys in the back or bobby-trap dead bodies, or even fake death and blow themselves up to be martyrs.
As Bill O'Reilly pointed out, Faking death is also a violation of the Geneva convention. This man was not a "Wounded, Unarmed citizen" - he was a combatant, and I would probably have shot the bastard in the head too....

=========Shaun ==========

[Unstable 9]

Quote

our government doesn't condone murder and torture, that is why the guards at abu gharib were punished for their actions, and that is why this Marine is being investigated, to determine whether or not he was right in doing what he did

I agree completely. I am just beyond angry at how this has been convulted and twisted around to slander our fighting men. Shameful...

=========Shaun ==========

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>>sounds like you REALLY need to review the Rules of Warfare again.. and talk to your leadership about some of the actions you seem to be advocating for soldiers..

<<

since when did you become a JAG officer, and i guarantee everyone in my chain of command feels the same way i do. i'd call my team leader and ask him for you if i could but he's already left the country

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

>>sounds like you REALLY need to review the Rules of Warfare again.. and talk to your leadership about some of the actions you seem to be advocating for soldiers..

<<

since when did you become a JAG officer, and i guarantee everyone in my chain of command feels the same way i do. i'd call my team leader and ask him for you if i could but he's already left the country

you dont have to be a JAG officer, following the Laws of Warfare is the responsibility of EVERY soldier.. your officers responsibility is to INSURE you are properly traing to do it no matter how stressed or frightened you are otherwise...

if your command also believes executing an unarmed, wounded combatant is acceptable behavior then our military training and discipline has already gone to shit

[PhillyKev 0]

Ummm....you might want to find out if he is or ever was in the military before you blast him like that.

[Zep 0]

Up untill now I have refrained from entering this thread, Just content to read the difference of opions
This morning I noticed that a Spanish left wing news paper "EL PERIODICO"
has already decided that the Marine is guilty, by printing that the Marine assasinated the wounded iraqi
When the Marine is cleared I shall take great delight in sending the cutting to him so he can sue thier asses.

Quote:-
direct and indirect '3rd party' observation of combat is a reality of modern warfare... i'd hate to break it to you, but its going to get 'worse' in the near future... anyone with the proper equipment will have near-real time feeds from what will conceivably become nearly every US soldier (and a number of other observation platforms as well) for the near term this will be limited to military commanders.... dont expect it to remain so... end quote.


When that day comes I sincearly hope the soldiers go on strike

Can you imagine a soldier having to worry about the enemy, and then worry about big brother looking over his shoulder.

Gone fishing

[billvon 3,006]

Calm down there. If someone offends you here, it's a lot better to just ignore them than to respond to them. One of the rules here is you can't personally attack someone even if they offend you or say something really stupid i.e. you can't call them an idiot even if you really, honestly believe they are.

[christelsabine 1]

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.

You're (were) in the army?
If yes, I really would not like to be within your range. You're exploding like a volcan, or something like that.... wow.

My grand dad and my dad -both of them marines- see it completely different:

Young folks, just recruited from the street, perhaps only trained for few months, are sent to Iraq. In my grand dad's eyes, they simply are cannon food. Just sent over there to play war, as they never ever really were educated enough to stand situations like the one in question.

Missing education, missing ability to quickly judge a situation (a well trained soldier would know what to do): That cost lifes, lifes of the "others", Iraquis, which seem to have no value in their enemies eyes.
Men, defending their own country, their families, they are a father, a son, a husband. That is of no value to the young, idiotic GI Joe killing a wounded man by shooting him in the head. His comment: Now, he's dead!

That's just ugly.

But to come back to issue: No one will bash those young guys. They will suffer later.

All your lofty words will not help if one day they remember: I killed someone w/o any need. It will come, be sure.

Bash me for my past; I didn't live it. Today, I cannot imagine to be in a war like that.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[pajarito 0]

Quote

You're (were) in the army?
If yes, I really would not like to be within your range. You're exploding like a volcan, or something like that.... wow.

That's what the Nazi's said. At least, in the end.

[christelsabine 1]

They said it? How can you know?
Unknown to me.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Darius11 12]

Is that kind of like Bill O'Reilly’s saying the marine was innocent?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain