War is f-ed up

I agree, but I'll bet it's more of a gore-factor. I saw the pics of the dead insurgents as well as the beheading pics/videos and there is *alot* less blood with the shooting victims. I'll bet its a formula of less gore=more airtime.

Let's see.. the guy who shot the Iraqi wounded was wrong. Maybe - by and from some perspectives.

The Iraqis/whoever who beheaded the guys with their knives were justified due to being antagonized by Bush - wouldn't have happened had Bush not been so big an ass? BS.

The war is wrong; all war is wrong.. Again BS. If all war is wrong, and America should not engage in war, then a numbe rof Euros would be speaking German now - far more than currently do so..... that or Italian.... or Japanese...or Russian....you choose.

All of the war should be televised so we can see? BS
You can't see it all. There aren't enough cameras or crews. There's not enough air tiem. There's not even enough interest after the intial bloodlust and curiosity of the average viewer.

Embedded reporters are/are not to blame.
BS. Embedded reporters are doing their jobs - what they are getting paid for - to write stories and send back pictures of what they see. They can't send back pictures of what they do not see - but often screw up and write about inuendo and unsupported assertions/conclusions without qualifying those stories. The media producers and editors each get a shot at screwing up "the true story as our embedded reporter saw it while he was there/pictures don't lie" yet again. And the stories that do get reported are intended not so much to inform but to keep the audience coming back for more - media economics vs media ethics. Anything approaching "truth" or ethical consideration is accidental in most cases, not intended - unless the broadcast/publication has as its primary priority that of dispensing an ideology/particular perspective and money is not an issue.

Bush is the devil incarnate..... Uh maybe. Compare him to Clinton who ordered two different Tomahawk strikes against unsuspecting Afghanis in the name of taking out terrorists... What's the difference? Scale? Then they are both the devil.. death is death to those involved.

Kerry would never have been so horrible? Who the hell says so? Oh, I forgot. He did. Then he ... nope he would never change his mind would he?

This is a ridiculous thread..

BTW, Bush won. Get over it one way or the other - whether you supported him prior to the election or not (speaking to American citizens now). He IS the elected President now (speaking to the world now). That is not going to change - that is, he has been elected. The results are not in dispute. Like him or not, deal with it. Want to whine and go to Canada? Email me for a custom made map to anywhere in Canada.. cost- free. I'll even include a personal card saying "goodbye, good riddance, farewell." Let me say again - had Kerry won, I would support him AS THE President. He didn't. I don't have to.

Can we move on now?

He didn't. I won't.

Kendra, that kind of blind denial of reality must weigh heavily on your ability to deal with others in the world that is not SL... .the "real world". Good luck with it.

They are still counting Ohio, and as far as I can see the electoral college has not yet voted. I have no doubt that Bush WILL win --but as of this moment --he has not won anything. See --I actually am in the real world --and you're in the Matrix.

so long, coppertop.

We wouldn't have been there so no it wouldn't have happened.


Some wars have been wrong...some have been right...I don't remember reading in the thread that all war is wrong...only that all war is ugly. This war on the other hand is wrong. It was brought on for the wrong reasons. If the war were in Afghanistan against those who attacked the US the sentiment would be different.



No all war cannot be televised but people should be shown that war is not a game, that lives are being lost. The current admin has stopped the media on several occasions from even showing the flag draped coffins. Removing ourselves from the attrocity does not make it go away. Nobody wants the blood and gore but it is real and bloody and nasty. There are no flower ladened feilds of happy citizens in a war torn country.


True...but that doesn't make it right.



Don't try comparing apples to arsnic. This isn't about scale it is about intent.



The flip flop gig is worn out. I don't know who could do a better job but I do know that over the past 4 years Bush has not done his job as far as protecting the borders, fighting those who ATTACKED us and controlling the deficit.


Once again as an American Citizen I can and will voice my opinion regardless of the powers that be...the president may control the country but not the sentiment of the common man. Whining and bitching made this country what it is. If we didn't whine we would still be under control of the King (and I don't mean Elvis)...though that may not have been a bad thing.



No we cannot...we cannot move on untill the death tally stops. Sorry, but what do we move on to? Blind allegiance ...can't and won't.

Well you started off good til I got right about here .......


The thread was going fairly civil til you stepped in. Thanks once again for raising your radical head Korg. Thumbs up. You were an officer correct ??

Who said that? I certainly never said it was justified. Can you show me where someone says it was justified?



Those are two different arguments. I would side with you in that not all war was/is wrong, but I believe this one is. It's not really fair to lump all wars together and declare a validity to them as the factors leading up to them were all very different.



Obviously not all of the war can be covered. But, we shouldn't sanitize it either.



I believe his is. I wish he'd just go back to drinking.. I think he was much better at that. Just my opinion, mind you.

hehe...rethinking my opinion of your government Kendra...bravo

Maybe what this soldier did was wrong, however, if I was in that situation who knows, I possibly may have done the same thing. We don't know the complete circumstance surrounding the events leading up to this incident. We don't know what exactly all they go through everyday. We only get to see what the media allows us to see. Unless you have been in this war fighting right along with the other soldiers, then your opinions of what is right or wrong is not justified.

What saddens me the most is how this country is divided. I am not a Bush supporter, I am however a supporter of the men and women fighting in this war. I pray for them every night and hope for their safe return.

THANK YOU!

Sorry if this disrupts the thread but hooold on there--this war is the most televised/broadcast war ever in history... (in terms of using technology to get actual near real time news, recordings and such.) The media likes to latch onto the sensational crap that gets ratings--that's their main priority--and during wartime the bad news is it. Not saying that one was the right decision or that the government always makes the correct decision, but an out of control media isn't too cool either. Perhaps it's ok to moderately censor certain things, as long as the news of them still gets out. Everyone knows how many guys we've lost over there, I don't think we're so stupid that we have to actually see coffins to understand what the numbers mean, are we?

But I don't think that needs to be censored, either, in this case.

They do show plenty of pictures of troops, and I think that's much more of a "wakeup call" if one is needed, isn't it?

Having never served in the military, perhaps one of you folks who are in the service now, or are vets can answer this question.

Are the commanders responsible for the actions of those under them in the chain-of-command. I don't mean a criminal, military justice sort of responsibility, but a military responsibility. Does this guy's company commander bear responsibility because it is he who is supposed to ensure that his troops are trained and disciplined for the task at hand?

- Ace

They are to an extent Ace. The commander will not likely receive punitive punishment but may be relieved of command. Not sure how the Corps operates but that would be a likely scenario for the Army. He really can't be held to task for an individual personal fuck up. However in the case of Abu Ghraib they indeed would/could receive punitive punishment as that was more of a collective event and indeed would call to task the grasp he has on command.

IF you want a real world answer, look up Lt Calley and the Mai Lai massacre on the Net/Google... The quick and firty of it is that Calley supposedly ordered his men to line up a group of civilians alongisde a rodadside gulley and then had the civilians all gunned down. The entire platoon participated.

Part of Calley's defense included the Nuremberg defense, "I was following orders", as were most of the defenses of themen below him. Calley was convicted and served time in Federal prison while a few of his men did also - but their sentences were traded and reduced to convict Calley. Calley's Company and Battalion commanders both disputed his account of orders and events and got off scot-free. From at least one perspective, it's cut and dry...from another, not nearly so clear. This raised the question and legal issue of lawful orders and ethical responsibilities to refuse to follow "illegal" ones.

That being said, there is no simple answer to the questionof can or will the commanders abov eth esolider be held responsibile for anything - including Abu Grab stuff. A lot of prosecutions are politically motivated and media influenced. Had this individual event not been personally witnessed by a media guy, the prosecution or not of this case would likely be very different.

Tbhat's my experience and perspective.

Korg, you have lost any respect I have for your post regarding this situation after this quote....





First of all it was Al-Zarqawi who has claimed responsibility for numerous beheadings. Others have been by various insurgents. Obviousley you didn't know if you are using the term "The Iraqis/whoever". You should do some research before you speak.

Secondly, to say this was justified is absolute ignorance on your part. If you feel this type of behavior is justified for whatever reason, then why don't you be noble and go over there and surrender yourself for the cause that you so greatly support. I'm sure it would make Al-Zarqawi happy to have a volunteer.

Peace,
MJ

First, I never asked for nor need your respect. I am certainly sure I don't care whether or not I have it. But you must respect it/my opinion to some extent or you wouldn't respond - only fools argue with themselves or just to argue.

Second, I know who has CLAIMED responsibility... to claim responsibility and to be responsibile are two differrent things.. or didn't you know that? As for not writing out a specific name to include... "Others have been by various insurgents. Obviousley you didn't know if you are using the term "The Iraqis/whoever"... gee. Didn't YOU just do the same thing with "various insurgents"? Sure seems to be the pot calling the kettle black to me. I know where you can get some sand to pack in a dark and quiet place.

Third, I never said anything was justified... you need to get your eyes checked. I have repeatedly said that I did not feel we should have **begun** either Desert Sheild/Storm or Iraq2... Did you miss that? Again, if so.. I can recommend a good eye doctor. What I said, is that snce we ARE ther now, I feel that all American citizens have a responsibility AS CITIZENS to support the President in his excution of the reponsibilites of his office. You can disagree with how he does the job, but there is a civil way to disagree and an uncivil way. Most of what I see on the forums is quite uncivil - not much different than the anti-Bush crap I hear daily by liberals in the media and at my university on a daily basis.

As for your snide remarks, keep them coming. With every post you make, you continue adding support to my conviction that ideologues hear and see only what they want to hear and see. I get a real kick out of the emotional garbage offered up as argument.

Never said you did ask for it. You must feel you need an ego boost if you honestly think that you do have my respect. I responded because that's what the forums are about, debates and opinions.



I said various insurgents because they do not give the names. I read the news everyday and blogs. I listen to what everyone has to say and there opinions. I do get the facts.



You never said that "The Iraqis/whoever who beheaded the guys with their knives were justified due to being antagonized by Bush"???? I guess I must be blind then. Will definitely go get my eyes checked. Thanks for pointing that out. **end saracasm**

Uh.. you can obviously quote properly but apparently stopped reading... Do you see the Question marks at the end of the sentence you quoted?

This is what they look like ????

I hope that helps.... Question marks indicate either interrogatives or sarcasm.

Actually, I'm very familiar with My Lai. I once wrote a history paper on that incident.

I think what happened there, and what happened this past weekend in Iraq are two completely different things. With My Lai, you had the officer on the ground leading the slaughter, while I'm guessing (actually hoping) that whoever was the CO for this soldier never encouraged or condoned the shooting of a wounded, unarmed man.

From what I learned as I studied My Lai, Calley may have had a case for his Nueremberg defense. During the entire operation, he had commanding officers circling the village in helicopters, all the way up to a one star. If they didn't order the slaughter, they certainly didn't do a whole lot to stop it, even though they were apparently aware of what was going on. But the military needed to hang someone out to dry, and Calley was the one chosen by whoever chooses these things.

But that's beside the point...

I guess where I come down on this whole thing in Iraq is that, while we might understand how it could have happened, we can never justify or condone it. A young, scared soldier had a lapse in judgement and discipline, and violated both the rules of engagement and the rules of war. And as a result, there's one guy who might not be dead, and we've given the extremists more ammunition for their anti-American rhetoric.

No matter how barbaric you might point out that the insurgents are over there, we only make the whole situation more difficult when our guys stoop to their level.

Do I want to have a lynching squad looking for people to nail to the wall over this? Absolutely not! But I sure would like it if the commanders made sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

- Ace

Justify? Condone? Understand? Vague ambibuous words describing equally vague, ambiguous concepts.

Young.. scared.. lapse in judgement? You have any evidence that the soldier was either scared or lapsed in judgement? Maybe he deliberately did what he did? It is definitely not unheard of - and actually quite commonplance if you do the research and speak to veterans of martial conflict around the world - for combatants to kill wounded enemies. This is done for any number of reasons.

Why would American soldiers be held to any higher standard?

The thread title is "war is f*d"...Well, let me see. War = dead people. This guy made someone dead. Is that f*d up? Not. Is it illegal according to American military law? Probably. Am I surprised that he/any soldier would do such a thing? Not in the least. Does it have to be explained or excused or justified? Not to me. Been there... won't say if I have done that/seen that done for somewhat obvious legal reasons.

Violated rules of engagement? You know what those rules were? Tell us. No, on second thought, don't. Rules of engagement don't mean shit when you are actually being shot at except to lawyers, politicians and those who have never "been there".

Finally, it is absolutely ridiculous to even think that commanders can prevent this from occuring again. Commanders cannot be everywhere on the "battlefield" simultaneously. They cannot control the actions of all soldiers simultaneously or even individually - all they can do is give orders and supervise to some extent. Thems the facts people. Each individual soldier is an armed and dangerous person with "license to kill" as soon as he enters a hostile area - I don't care what the orders are... That was my experience under fire at least. Survival first, vengance for wounded and dead comrades second, orders third - IF you had a chance to think during a firefight. And you often didn't get the chance. There's an old saying that lots of infantry pukes follow - kill em all, let God sort it out later. Sounds shitty.... that's life on the battlefield.

Lawyers and politicians do not fight wars. Soldiers do. Lawyers, politicans and liberals come in and muck up things both before and after the mess is actually hitting the fans... and generally screw things up for Joe Snuffy the Average Soldier just trying to survive to the next day.

Edited to include this addendum: The rules of war are for those who don't like the mess or the results. They aslo seem to be made and referred to by people who feel guilty - about winning, about death, and about other similar things. Rules or war? Pure liberal BS - always has been.

No.

Few soldiers I've known would take the concepts of discipline and rules so lightly, even in combat.

Kill 'em all and let God sort it out later is battlefield psychology -- the same as it don't mean a fuckin' thing -- meant to put a soldier's mind into a place where he or she can do the horrifying duty and not panic nor become confused by an inappropriate "fog" of emotions. It's not a statement of policy, it's not a moral justification, and it's not a tactical approach; it's just a place you where you go to prepare for your fear -- and nearly every soldier I knew understood that. Steps were taken to control, correct, or get rid of those who did not.

Sometimes those steps failed, and vengeance happened, or the rules were ignored. But the great majority of American officers and nco's I associated with acted responsibly to attain the objective, insure the survival of their unit, enforce discipline, and follow the rules -- because they were professionals, and had a sense of the humane, even in combat.

ed.sp.

If this is true, then god save us all...

- Ace

So.. with that you invalidate my statment - "That was my experience under fire at least."?
I don't think so. As a matter of fact, I know it doesn't. You gave a psychobabble bs explanation which was totally unnecessary - apparently as a means to subvert my point. My point was that no one who was not there at that very moment and place has a clue what was in the soldier's mind at that time and place. And even those there with him don't know.

As for Ace's response
<<If this is true, then god save us all... >>
to my statement
<<<Finally, it is absolutely ridiculous to even think that commanders can prevent this from occuring again. >>

how can any commander prevent anything on the battlefield or anywhere else? He cannot be everywhere simultaneously, he cannot manipulate individual trigger fingers (or other parts) of individual soldiers.... You really have to be in a dreamworld to think that a commander would know everything that his soldiers are doing at all times.

Holding a commander responsible for everything his soldiers subordinate to him do is a way to assign blame - that's all. Anything more is emotional reaction. Blaming the commander for the actions of his soldier answers the following equation:
Individual soldier discipline =(is a result of) commander/superior leadership + individual soldier training

Unfortunately, that "equation" leaves out the following variables.... momentary environmental influences, individual soldier psyche (long term), individual soldier emotional state (short term), recent events in the soldier's life, and more.... some of it quite undefinable.

Just as you can lead a horse to water and not make him drink, once you stick a weapon in the hands of any soldier, the person doing so has lost total control of what happens with that weapon... It's a trust thing. It's also a gamble.

On any battlefield the only thing standing between life and death is one sweaty finger and a momentary feeling of threat or superiority.