So we shouldn't hold our soldiers to a higher standard? Interesting. You know we like to tell the rest of the world how great we are. How we are the best country in the world, are ******** doesn't stink. Perhaps we show it by not saying, 'ah forget about it'....when a Marine does something like this. DJ, you may not hold our troops to a higher standard....I do. See we are supposed to be the good guys.
Don't forget. While it's cold comfort to anyone involved in the situation, the U.S. Military does enforce its code of justice. If the soldier involved committed a wrongful act and is punished for it, our claim to be the "good guys" remains in place. You can't prevent every bad thing in war. You can continue to have a place for due process. (That's also why I agree with whoever said Abu Ghraib was worse.)
Well, I obviously did not state my position well enough. I DO agree we must hold out troops to a higher standard. My point was only that we must also recognize the difficulty of the situation. Not even in Vietnam, and that was bad, was there such incredible cruelty and inhumanity regularly enacted by the enemy. In contrast to Dan Loney, I admire our troops in this situation like no other. NEVER have our troops been asked to endure the difficulties in battle that they face in Iraq. The discipline and self-restraint that must be exercised in dealing with an enemy who routinely disregards the rules is almost unimagineable. They have their lives on the line constantly and yet they must "play by the rules." My hat is off to them. Just keep playing by the rules. It is what makes us special.
In Dan's honor, you do understand that he was joki *head explodes* Vietnam ring a bell? Yet after exhorting them to play by the rules, you give them a free pass in a situation where they failed to do that. Huh?
Every war has had its own unique forms of horror that another war hasn't. I think once we start saying well, this one is really tough so who cares if are soldiers don't act the way we like them to we are going to start having serious problems. Nobody is saying that our soldiers are in a great situation or that all of them act below the standards that we would like, well some may but I would certainly disagree with them. Again every war has its own set of unique horrors. Look at every war this country has fought in. So then why does it sound as if you are giving this situation a free pass? The problem that I see with this situation is that it is another glaring example of how we are ready and able to win the war, but unable and seemingly unwilling to win the peace. Sure killing the Iraqi takes on more off the battlefield, but the tape that is surely being shown to all possible recruits is likely to bring several additional Iraqi insurgents onto the battlefield. I am not saying send this soldier to the gallows, but unless there is something that wasn't shown on that tape...there has to be something done. I am curious as well about this soldiers injury just the day before. It would seem a bad move to put somebody who had that just happen back into the fray as I am sure that he was nowhere near to being all there mentaly. I don't know what that standard procedure is for this, but I think that is another issue that needs looking at as well. Of course our low troop levels might have played a factor as well.
Thanks for getting my back, but we don't know for certain that he did fail to play by the rules. It wasn't premeditated. We don't know what the Marine saw, or where the victim's hands were. We don't know what was going through the Marine's mind. But, we sure do know what was going through the victim's mind - hot lead. My God, what a sick, callous, horrible joke. I am such an **************.
Sorry, that was not clear from his post. Yes it does but there most wore uniforms, didn't hide in temples, and didn't run around beheading innocents just because. However, I don't really care whether this is worse or not. It still doesn't justify breaking the rules, by either side. Respectfully, read my last line again. I do NOT give them a free pass. In fact, I tried to say the opposite. I guess I will have to stop typing between phones calls. My brain doesn't multi-task that well.
Perhaps saying the "difficulties in battle" are unprecedented is not totally accurate. We seem to have our way in battle. The big issue is to face terrorists who have no conscience and no respect for humanity. THAT is the big issue. I was not in Vietnam but had 3 very close friends who saw a lot of action there. One is recently retired and still has some contacts with personnel in Iraq. The other night we were comparing notes and it was the unanimous feeling that this is a more difficult war to fight because of the factors I stated above. So, yes, I do believe this is tougher than Vietnam. But all of that is somewhat moot because, as has been stated here before, all wars are hell.
I wasn't going to make this next joke until I saw Dan made the hot lead through the head joke. So here goes... Probably while masturbating furiously with a belt tied around his neck.
do you realize that if, say, the majority of sunni iraqis is with the insurgents, the horror brought by terrorist acts (and that is surely horror) has little significance?
These were the people that supported Saddam and filled his ranks, why would what the terrorists are doing now be horrific for them when the same and worse was done under the Hussein regime.
There's an interesting article by an American Army Major, John A. Nagl, that throws some light on the effectiveness, or not, of the American military in this kind of conflict. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2393/is_4_161/ai_54146668/print Interesting reading. Essentially he argues that the British army developed more effective counterinsurgency techniques, (during the Malayan 'emergency', for example), than the Americans were able to in Vietnam largely because our military was more accustomed to the idea of 'Colonial policing'. We were more 'comfortable', for want of a better word' dealing with the population in which the opposition was operating and this didn't create more problems that was solved by a more heavy handed approach. This is the real problem with this type of thing and why it's vital we are shown to uphold our own values even if it means throwing the book at this guy. It's not that it simply creates one hundred more terrorists - it's that it breeds a culture of distrust in the entire Iraqi population... ALL of them. In the long run that's a lot worse. A bit rough on him, I suppose but, as you said, this conflict is tougher than Vietnam and - do I need to remind you?... er, you lost that one.
I'm calling BS on the article. I'll wait until everything's over to get a more reasonable count. I don't trust the Red Crescent's numbers one bit considering they're getting second hand information.
You think 800 is unlikely? Even allowing for the fact that most of the population will have left in the build-up to the battle, I reckon any final tally around that figure would be almost miraculously wonderful, given what might have been.