Well this is just disgusting.

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
1. Jetsetter - I didn't say I was shocked. A lot of people treat animals like garbage, it's unfortunate and sad - not meaningless. It's because they were soldiers, I put it in this thread....if they were some kids in Vermont, I would have put it in the random thoughts thread.

2. BerserkerCatSplat - Would you rather I go around with a video camera, record my own videos of messed up things, upload it to youtube...and then post it?

I post links to videos or stories....ooooohhhh...the horror!
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
There are no "orderly" wars and when you realize that the better off you will be. Find vidoes of Iraqis attacking other Iraqi in different ethnic groups, that is the real killer of civilians.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
I alluded to this in an earlier post...

The problem is that you're looking at this from the perspective that it involves soldiers. If it were 3 kids from anywhere U.S.A., would you be as dismissive of it?

If you see something wrong, don't be afraid to denounce it. It shouldn't matter who does it.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
There are no "orderly" wars and when you realize that the better off you will be. Find vidoes of Iraqis attacking other Iraqi in different ethnic groups, that is the real killer of civilians.
Funny thing is, i'm not the one that thinks wars are orderly....I fully understand how terrible war is, that's why one should only go to war when necessary.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
Funny thing is, i'm not the one that thinks wars are orderly....I fully understand how terrible war is, that's why one should only go to war when necessary.
I believe the war have could have been done a different way and turned out more successful, grouping up with the Iranians in the beginning is one example. They have more reasons to hate Saddam then anyone else. But what is done is done. It seems that you, like the media, is only reporting when something bad happens. Here is an example, Operation Enduring Freedom included a Philippine operation that inserted several hundred special forces into the Philippines to help to train the Philippine military to kill and capture the radical terrorist organizations operation on some of the Southern Philippine islands. While the special forces were on the islands they paid for and help to construct mosques and other facilities, they repaired roads and help facilities, and most importantly their presence stopped the kidnapping epidemic and lowered the crime rate in the areas significantly. These are the events that don't make the news but matter most to the people who were helped. These towns are friendly to Americans and wondered why they had to leave eventually because the Philippine government is too weak to take over the improved situation.
 

Narcolepsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
558
Location
Philadelphia, USA
Firecat - what exactly are you trying to prove? You're certainly being aggressively argumentative.

We get the idea - the invasion of Iraq was based on false and flimsy pretenses and an afront to international law, and American soldiers have done some bad things there. I think we are all in agreement that war is bad. I, like many people in this forum, am close with some people over there.

Here is my two cents:

The misconduct there is the natural and probable consequence of any long term military occupation. Any army thus situated would have lapses in discipline and like misconduct, due the stress of being regularly exposed to mortal danger. I'm not saying that morally excuses it, but it is part and parcel with the situation. Both sides have comitted attrocities. Its classic asymetric warfare - the weaker insurgents use any and all tactics necessary - bar none, and treat civilians as acceptable collateral. The much stronger American force has to limits itself and abide by particular rules of engagement since it is an un-uniformed enemy in order to minimize the casualties resulting from confusion. When exposed to mortal danger, fear or a principled defense of one's own leads often to the overstepping of these rules where civilians are likewise treated as acceptable collateral. Soldiers do bad things too - we get it. That said there have been far worse military occupations.

Both have treated prisoners well outside the terms of international law - a concept very rarely applied on the ground in any war zone. Neither side abides and the side that did would be disadvantaged. (A technicality worth noting - un-uniformed combatants are not subject to the Geneva Convention)

I have no doubt that both sides have brave, principled, loyal people just trying to defend their own. As well, I'm sure both sides are subject to shows of macho arrogance and aberations in discipline. That said, the American military is certainly one of the more disciplined, despite these lapses.

While some orders are illegal, soldiers have neither the knowledge, the privilege, nor the inclination to disobey. Compelled by training, peer pressure, and patriotism, and lacking extensive knowledge of legalities or the political merit of the war- the soldiers carry out orders - often those that are morally ambigious - and when moral lines are crossed they are Court Marshaled. These men don't ask political questions - their job description is to defend their country unconditionally. Revolutionaries fighting an insurgency are no more noble, particularly when they directly and indirectly endanger civilians (such as using indiscriminant weapons or using the cloak of a civilian population as a shield)

If there is any blame to be had - it goes higher up the chain of command. I'm sure there is a discussion to be had on the merits of the initial invasion in which the majority here would agree with you.
 

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
If there is any blame to be had - it goes higher up the chain of command. I'm sure there is a discussion to be had on the merits of the initial invasion in which the majority here would agree with you.
Bingo. It is the Vietnam mentality that is limiting the effectiveness on the ground. The older leaders who remember Vietnam are worried about Iraq becoming the next Vietnam but in reality they are actually accelerating this change. If more decision making was left to commanders and soldiers closer to the battlefield this conflict would be going much better than it is at the moment.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Jetsetter - I don't deny that the American military has been used for worthy causes. I really have nothing further to say in that regard.

Narcolepsy - I'm not trying to prove anything. This is a forum for discussion, that's all. In respect to the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with anything in there.

I do however take issue with those that wish to make excuses for some of these acts you speak of, yet don't afford the same to the other side (And this isn't limited to Iraq, but other conflicts as well....even those that don't involve America). I can understand it, because it generally comes from a highly subjective point of view (which is expected when "your country" is involved)...but it's still hypocritical.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
Bingo. It is the Vietnam mentality that is limiting the effectiveness on the ground. The older leaders who remember Vietnam are worried about Iraq becoming the next Vietnam but in reality they are actually accelerating this change. If more decision making was left to commanders and soldiers closer to the battlefield this conflict would be going much better than it is at the moment.
Did this mentality exist during Vietnam, or did military leaders have more authority?Because that war didn't go too well either.
 
Top