The US soldier executing an Iraqi wounded

[The Industriallist]

I would say that that isn't a good reason to support the war. A good reason to support the war effort yes. The key difference is...supporting the war is agreeing with the decision to start it and agreeing with the way it's been conducted. Which you may or may not do...but I would consider that entirely seperate from supporting the troops in the field. Which in theory I do, though I admittedly haven't done anything to make that meaningful.

And for reference...what's the point of complaining on the forum about people complaining on the forum? It happens a fair bit, but I really don't get it.

>rklenseth
Of course, if we hadn't demolished the country, it's possible that any weapons that were there would have stayed there...now you can be fairly sure that if there actually were WMDs that were at all portable, they're in the hands of terrorists. Just somehting to think about.

[kroner]

pixie> my uncle is in iraq. i don't support the war. i've been opposed from the start. just from a personal standpoint what better way is there to ensure his safety than to try to get him back home as soon as possible?

opposing the war is not like telling people that he's stupid, it's like telling people that what he is being ordered to do is stupid (he's a surgeon so this is not the case, but that's irrelevent). his character != his orders. as i've said before, the soldiers who have to fight are the victims. supporting the war is to support their mistreatment. fighting in a war is really one of the worst things that can happen to you. let's not prolong it, shall we?

[Missy]

I would say that that isn't a good reason to support the war. A good reason to support the war effort yes. The key difference is...supporting the war is agreeing with the decision to start it and agreeing with the way it's been conducted. Which you may or may not do...but I would consider that entirely seperate from supporting the troops in the field. Which in theory I do, though I admittedly haven't done anything to make that meaningful.

.

Very nicely said.

I don't support the war. Never have. Knew it was coming before it came and didn't support it even then. I'm not about to support it now, just because I know people that are there. I hope them all a safe return, and that they aren't in harms way, and I will send cookies after box of cookies to my husbands unit, but I'd never say I supported the war in Iraq. Never!! I don't need to support the damn thing, to hope that the troops there are safe. I don't need to agree with something I find unjust, when I know the troops are only doing what the govt's telling them to do!


As for soldiers behaving badly--It's human nature. (I don't pretend to think that our soldiers are perfect) Some of them are messed up before they go, others are messed up as a result of being there and being there under some circumstances. I don't find that the acts are condoned. Yes maybe some acts are condoned by senior officers, but it's in no way supposed to be happening. I hope any soldier who comitts such acts is heavily ashamed and punnished for representing our country in such a way. For instance the problem with the prisoners at guantanamo. Uncalled for.
What I do know is that soldiers are trained to kill or be killed, they live on fear, and anyone who is smart, knows that when you live with fear your reactions are not necessarily rational. (Why else do people run from police? )

I have watched many documentarys where they showed how soldiers become "gung-ho" How it becomes a "rush" to kill. I've also seen how, first hand, a group of men will react to one anothers banter/beliefs. In example, when my husbands unit first learned they were going to be deployed to afghanistan they all came over "Gonna shoot me some sand *iggers" But then when you got one of them alone, it wasn't about that anymore. It was about a serious issue and lives involved.

I dont know where to draw a line when comparing ourselves to another nation, perhaps one can't be drawn. But because a group of terrorists fight dirtier than us, doesn't mean we have a right to act inappropriately. (heck how do you even compare dirtier..)
The question I want to ask, is: If this soldier who shot this Iraqi was afraid (sincerely) do you take sympathy on him or not?

We will never know for certain what he saw or felt in the moments it took for him to react. Video shows us what the person behind the camera sees, not what the soldier himself sees. If he were molesting this iraqi, or shoving foreign objects down his throat, or beating him with the butt of his gun? Okay. Guilty. But questioning if he was afraid or just killing to kill, isn't going to give me an answer of truth.

[Pirog]

rklenseth>

Just to get something straight, Pirog. I am currently working and schooling in the media field.

Yes, and that is quite a surprise for me...because you do have a very strange view on media. It wasn't long ago that you told me that it is wrong to doubt what journalists says...which is the most uncompliacted and uncritical view I have probably ever heard about media.
Any media education should begin from day one and hammer in the fact that you can't take what is said on the news as the truth.

And you claim that these atrocities happen all the time but where is your evidence?

Documentaries, eye witness reports from human shields and others, common sense. And of course you can claim things without evidence. People, including you, do it all the time.
I could put links to sites, documentaries etc. for you to read...but I doubt that you would so it would be waste of my time.

I know that accidents happen in war and innocence die or mistakes are made but where is this evidence of people conspiring to commit atrocities?

I haven't claim that there is some sort of conspiracy. But there are many detailed reports from soldiers about massacres on entire towns etc. in the Vietnamn war...why would human nature has changed since then?
Military commanders doesn't value lives the way I and other civilians do. Then it would be impossible for them to function. I could never live with sending people to their deaths.

On Saddam, he had already invaded two other countries.

Yes, and ge got his ass kicked the last time. Saddam Hussein is an atrocious person, but you can't deny that he is intelligent. He was very aware that the world wouldn't let him invade another country ever again and that it would mean his certain death.

There was evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed and that Saddam was conspiring to keep them hidden.

Yes, but if you see from where that evidence came from it isn't very reliable evidence. Your govenment wanted to wage a war. Obviously they are going to construct evidence to motivate it.

And I'm aware of how he disobeyed UN Resolutions etc. But he is far from alone to do that. Dictators around this planet massacre their people, break international laws etc. and they can even be funded by the US government.
Personally, I just think Bush needed something impressive, since the war on terror doesn't make very good TV. Hurling missiles at tents isn't as good as burning palaces...

I'm still not entirely convinced that there weren't any WMDs.

Neither am I. But I am convinced that Saddam Hussein didn't have enough WMDs to prove a threat to the surrounding regions.

And why is the focus on WMDs so unbalanced? No other country has so many WMDs as USA, few others have handed them out to bad guys as frequently or used them in combat as often, but still everyone seems to think it is obvious that USA and other Western countries should have a monopoly on WMDs.

The Industriallist>

Good points, both about the support issue and the WMDs.

Missy>

I dont know where to draw a line when comparing ourselves to another nation, perhaps one can't be drawn. But because a group of terrorists fight dirtier than us, doesn't mean we have a right to act inappropriately.

Thank you

The question I want to ask, is: If this soldier who shot this Iraqi was afraid (sincerely) do you take sympathy on him or not?

I don't. Or rather, I can take sympathy on the fact that he was probably mentally unbalanced and put in a situation where he broke under the pressure...but that is the same kind of sympathy that I would give a frustrated husband that smacks his wife around.
According to what you can see on the clip he doesn't seem terrified. It seems more like he has crossed the line mentally and started to hate his enemies on a personal level.

We will never know for certain what he saw or felt in the moments it took for him to react. Video shows us what the person behind the camera sees, not what the soldier himself sees. If he were molesting this iraqi, or shoving foreign objects down his throat, or beating him with the butt of his gun? Okay. Guilty. But questioning if he was afraid or just killing to kill, isn't going to give me an answer of truth.

That is certainly a good point. None of us will never know the truth...all we can do it speculate, as you do with pretty much everything else.

[ephiroll]

There's one more varible, however. In the kind of situation that soldier was in you don't have minutes or even seconds to decide upon a course of action and act, you have tenths of seconds, you don't have time to ponder if it's the best possible move because if you do you could die before you finish the thought. That doesn't mean he was thinking irrationally, doesn't mean he was acting out of hatred, it just means he was reacting to the situation and was unlucky enough to do it in front of a camera.

The prisoner abuse is completly different wherever the example is picked from. The people doing that aren't just acting badly, they're disrespecting their uniform, abusing their power, a general embaresment to armed forces all over the world. If I remember correctly, with a couple exceptions the ones doing this had little or no combat experiance anyway, they're just dumbass punk kids who got thrown into a situation they didn't know anything about, so the best they could do was proceed to screw it up because they were to undisciplined to accomplish anything else without a leash around their neck (yeah, most of them were 20-27, but being a dumbass punk kid isn't dependent on age, I know 40 and 50 year olds who are as irrisponsible as a badly potty trained dog).

[Pirog]

From what the clip shows I can't see it motivated for him to even consider killing the prisoner. That would be like bringing a gun and killing people every time you are in a club and someone starts to pick a fight.

Sure, the situation must be very stressful and I'm sure it is terrifying to inspect wounded enemies, but as a soldier you have a responsibility. If you can't handle that you have no place in the army.
I know wouldn't be able to handle such situations, so I didn't even make my military service...

I think it is very cynical of you to rationalise like you do...especially since you seem to have no understanding to why the insurgents and terrorists are forced to fight with unconventional means.

[Missy]

but as a soldier you have a responsibility. If you can't handle that you have no place in the army.
I know wouldn't be able to handle such situations, so I didn't even make my military service...

.

How does one know they're able to handle such a situation, having never been in one before? Likely there aren't very many people out there who would say they "could" handle a situation like that, whether in military or not. And if they did say they could, doesn't necessarily mean they can.

Also bearing in mind that a lot of the soliders there haven't been in combat before.

[kroner]

Incidents like this are bound to happen anytime that you have an occupying army in a generally hostile country. Something like this doesn't really represent the general morality of the country behind it. What I would say is that it illustrates how terrible it is for all involved to be in this situation. This is quite a mess that the US finds itself in.

I think what the US has done in Iraq is a mistake, but I don't think that this incident makes any sort of statement regarding that, except to underline the inhumanity of war. Certainly that soldeir is wrong, and so is anyone else who commits acts like this one. There are people like that from every nation and war is traumatic.

[formerly known as hf]

I think what the US has done in Iraq is a mistake, but I don't think that this incident makes any sort of statement regarding that, except to underline the inhumanity of war.

That's what I was trying to say earlier - war is brutal, ugly, inhumane - but, that's war... It's the attempts to pretend that war is not like this that I was arguing against (as well as the war itself)

rklenseth>
As for the media and censorship - the media is heavily censored - and not only be what is deemed 'acceptable'. The government is able to censor the media - which is why, as I said earlier, many news report state that what they show is subject to 'US restrictions' - if that's not censorship - what is?

As for 'food for oil' - this has been heavily documented in Europe. I know this has happened - and, yes, it's wrong. But, the US government is in no position to make judgements about that... The US has, and still does, support many, often brutal, dictatorships in return for resources, as well as other unsavoury regimes. And there are examples -

Uzbekistan - the governement is responsible for numerous politically motivated arrests and tortures - the US openly denounced this. But since the war on Iraq, and the new 'agenda' - the US now supports this government that they have, themselves, admited are gulity of torture... http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/us-and-uz.htm

Iraq - Saddam Hussein has the key to detroit! - http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0303/26/a06-119619.htm - the US helped arm Saddam - when he was still a brutal dictator - because it helped stop the spread of the soviets...

Bin Laden - again, the US has supported the work of Bin Laden when it helped them in the cold war...

Pakistan - Has supplied 'nuclear technology' to North Korea - a fact that has attempted to be covered up by the US http://www.fisiusa.org/fisi_News_items/Nukes_News/Nuke_news077.htm

And that's just the US - we're not much better here in the UK...

[formerly known as hf]

stop it you want to make a difference, send letters to the president. Don't complain on a forum about it over and over again... Especially since Many of these forum members are to young to understand. I am so tired of all the separate threads I have seen on this forum that debate the war, all you do is say the same things over and over.

I agree totally - this is no place to through this - if, like me, you really oppose the war - stop whinging about it in places like this forum - where what you say will make NO difference - those that support the war, they support it - and that's their right - we might be able to make them think more deeply about it - but I doubt that we can change their minds...

If you REALLY want to oppose the war - get out there and be active - I go on marches, sign pettitions, write to local MPs - the only way you can make a difference is to be pro-active about it - whinging about 'how bad it all is' - will get you no where...

[Pirog]

How does one know they're able to handle such a situation, having never been in one before?

You can never be sure, but he have still chosen to take that responsibility. Soldiers, police and others with a monopoly on violence simply must take responsibility for their actions, otherwise the system will break down.
You can't rationalise this and think "well, it was probably better for him to kill the wounded guy instead of risking his own life"...because then we would have chaos. If police officers decided to gun down the suspects instead of bringing them in just because the didn't feel like risking their lives...well, you can probably figure out that the society wouldn't function very well then.

But I do agree that the government has a responsibility to train the soldiers and make sure that they aren't put under too much pressure too of course.

But this is part of my point. War is horrible, and when people crack under the pressure things turn ugly and doesn't go by the rules...thus I believe that it isn't very uncommon with situations like the one of the clip.

hallucinatingfarmer>

I have taken part in anti-war demonstrations etc., but it isn't totally pointless to discuss things on forums. People learn things...even if they don't want to sometimes

[kroner]

it isn't totally pointless to discuss things on forums. People learn things...even if they don't want to sometimes

Exactly. Debating on the forum leaves everyone better informed, and might even change the minds of a few people here and there.

[Okud]

Looking at the topic title, all I can read is The soldier executing a wounded soldier
Don't expect much from soldiers.
It doesn't matter which big shot sends them to fight. It's just such a sad affair, going to war.

[The Industriallist]

I know that accidents happen in war and innocence die or mistakes are made but where is this evidence of people conspiring to commit atrocities?

I haven't claim that there is some sort of conspiracy. But there are many detailed reports from soldiers about massacres on entire towns etc. in the Vietnamn war...why would human nature has changed since then?
Military commanders doesn't value lives the way I and other civilians do. Then it would be impossible for them to function. I could never live with sending people to their deaths.

The Iraq war is bad. But I think it's safe to say that it's much better than Vietnam was. In Vietnam, we had:
-A conscript military. Combined with a few other aspects, that makes for massively negative morale. And vastly worse behavior from the troops, likely. Though using reserves the way we have been may push this somewhat.
-Massive race and drug problems within that military.
-A jungle. I hope it's not in any way unclear how much better a desert is than a jungle for us.
-Obligations to a local government that for the most part was significantly worse than nothing.
-An enemy that seems to have been much, much more ruthless than those we're fighting now in Iraq. Very likely more powerful as well.

Probably some other issues too. Whereas I can't think of a single point that makes Iraq worse than Vietnam. So I would expect that by comparison to the most hellish thing the US has ever been involved in, Iraq is quite pleasant.

Which isn't to say that it's nice to be there, or that bad things don't happen (often). But assuming that it's Vietnam take 2 is rather overboard.

On Saddam, he had already invaded two other countries.

Yes, and ge got his ass kicked the last time. Saddam Hussein is an atrocious person, but you can't deny that he is intelligent. He was very aware that the world wouldn't let him invade another country ever again and that it would mean his certain death.

If he was so intelligent...why did he break resolutions? Why hide weapons that certainly couldn't save him if he got into trouble?

I don't generally advocate total surrender. But when you're in a situation where your only concievable defence is the mercy of your enemies, it seems like the smart thing to do is throw yourself on it entirely.

There was evidence that weapons of mass destruction existed and that Saddam was conspiring to keep them hidden.

Yes, but if you see from where that evidence came from it isn't very reliable evidence. Your govenment wanted to wage a war. Obviously they are going to construct evidence to motivate it.

Not that I'd entirely put it past the government...but I would like to point out that you've just invoked an immense conspiracy, which I think you said you wouldn't.

Such things have been done before, certainly. Though I'm not really aware of any since the end of the Cold War. There were some interesting bits involved in the startup of the Vietnam war.

Incidentally...I would like to bring to general attention the point that what the US did in the Cold War can't be reasonably evaluated piece-by-piece, or by assuming that everything else was just like it is now. You have to actually get some idea of what the Cold War world looked like before you can really talk about it.

Though the 'War on Terror' does have a disturbing similarity to the more extreme Cold War perspectives...fighting against an ideology, not a country...a vast but amorphous force that bypasses borders with relative ease and uses subversion everywhere...not to mention that of course all them commies/terrorists are really on the same side...
(Note: that was a perspective. Not a correct one...but one that was fairly popular then, and has gained some popularity now. And now (likely then too) it's rather encouraged by 'our' leaders.

[formerly known as hf]

As for shooting a supposedly dead and wounded soldier - rather than being 'something soldiers do' - might it not be direct orders?

With the fear of suicide bombers and all...

Not that I in anyway agree that that is the right thing - but it's worth baring in mind that the soldier might just have been, as soldier stend to do, following orders?