Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Ahhh Nevermind. I thought you were implying that the use of the two nuclear bombs on Japan was more cruel than what the Soviets and Nazis did. I'm familiar with what the Japanese army did during WWII. They pretty much threw out all treaties and conventions dealing with war.
I find it hard to believe that this was cold blooded murder, or else they would have tried it as a murder. Read the story, it was tried as assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter. I think the military is just covering their butts so Iraqi's dont get the feeling that we are killing people on a whim.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
That's what I mean by different set of rules. In WWII, collateral deaths of civilians was more accepted than now simply because there was no other way to target and destroy military installations (especially in cities) with 100% accuracy. Because of technological advances, we're able to minimize collateral deaths today. However, even the lightest of collateral deaths is reported by the modern media as the greatest of atrocities...which is why the soldier in the OP was likely convicted.
IT'S A WAR. PEOPLE WILL GET KILLED. Man nothing pisses me off more then bleeding heart liberals lamenting over the suffering and anquish of Iraqi Insurgents. They fired at our troops first. They DIE. That's how you deal with an insurgency. You don't win wars with flowers and poetry sessions.
Yeah, I agree with that. It's actually hurting us, because our civilians are not willing to accept the realities of war and the damage our military inflicts on our enemies, while our enemies' civilians do seem willing to accept the reality of war and the damage their militaries inflict on the US.
In a war, the US doesn't have the support of its citizens while our enemy does.
Just from the article, it doesn't appear that a reporter "caught" the guy. The article states the killing was filmed by a US drone surveillance aircraft.
Oh please. You put down a wounded dog. You don't put down another human being. Was this asshat qualified to assess a wound as fatal? Did he seek medical assessment for the wounded Iraqi? Maybe the guy could have been saved. Who knows. Get real. It is not for individual soldiers to decide to put civilians or even wounded enemy combattants (sp?) "out of their misery".
Damn, from the last 2 paragraphs of the article it sounds like he was doing his job. The car they disabled had suspected insurgents. They stopped them. One fled the other didn't.
What's the term Dubya throws out. "Enemy Combatant"
They really need to leave Iraq. It is turning into the next Vietnam. There is no real support for it in the population and we aren't getting anything accomplished. They've proven no WMD's existed. I'm supprised Saddam hasn't bet let out of prison. Hell in todays age he could probably sue the US and win.
What's the term Dubya throws out. "Enemy Combatant"
They really need to leave Iraq. It is turning into the next Vietnam. There is no real support for it in the population and we aren't getting anything accomplished. They've proven no WMD's existed. I'm supprised Saddam hasn't bet let out of prison. Hell in todays age he could probably sue the US and win.
Well, Lots of German civilians died, too. Japan, I would say, was worse than Germany. The systematically raped china and by raped I mean exactly that. They had a habit od killing any natives found on the islands they built bases on, and enslaving the rest.
Germany didn't have their soldiers raping women, or at least it was very very limited. If you were female and Japanese occupied your town you were basically guarunteed to be gang-raped several times. In the fall of Manila, when MacArthur invaded and retook it from the japanese, the Japanese knew they were doomed so they rounded up all the civilians, killed the men and boys that they could find, raped all the women, killed many of them, too.
On japan's side alone do you have cannabalism. The most common place you see this is in the relatively new book Flyboys, about a half-dozen or so american airmen that were captured, killed . . . speaking of executions, the germans shoot you in the head, the japanese draw a circle around your heart, then order their men to bayonet you anywhere except for inside that circle . . then they take your head . . . anyway, after the airmer were killed the officers ate them. The book also states that cannabalism wasn't that isolated and happened in many other places.
So my point is that 1930's and 40's Japan was at least as cruel as the Nazis and the Soviets. I'd say the later two werecold organized (and thus larger) systems, while the Japanese demonstrated the evil you'd expect to see from a crazy, enraged, sadistic drunk.
He hasn't been sentenced to 10 to 20 years. He hasn't been sentenced at all. The MAXIMUM he can be sentenced to is 10 years, the prosecutors wanted 20. In all likelihood he will be dishonorably discharged, maybe serve a couple years in prison.
It does suck though, he was doing what he thought was the "right" thing to do.....
It does suck though, he was doing what he thought was the "right" thing to do.....
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Please. Stop reading liberal drivel. There have been many articles (Time magazine for example) lately that show the majority of Iraqis still support American intervention. In fact, the public is starting to help put down the resistance. This is nowhere nears Vietnam.
Damn, what a brilliant thread. People who have no idea what happened in the case or the evidence involved spew whatever political beliefs they bring to the situation.
1. This was a military tribunal. There was no jury. There were no lawyers. He was tried by officers and fellow soldiers, who, if anything, will err on the side of their brother. Why do you think you know better than they?
2. If you don't understand how a killing in war can be a crime, you haven't considered the meaning of the word "war." What separates war from murder? What makes it OK for a man to intentionally kill a person in one context but not another? Why is it OK for a uniformed soldier to kill an enemy, but if a civilian does so it's classified as terrorism? By definition, war is violence with rules.
Those rules are broken routinely, of course, but if we don't at least try to enforce them we become no better than anyone else. And to this point, American troops have almost always been damned good. Populations conquered by the Germans and Japanese were stunned by the treatment they received by American troops, and for the most part the Iraqis have been treated well. Would you give all of that up in your mindless defense of an American soldier without knowing what he's actually done?
And finally, if what angers you most about the insurgents is their depraved willingness to kill indiscriminately, why should we hold our soldiers to their standard rather than our own?
The US military has clear and simple rules of engagement. If you break them, you're liable for the consequences, for moral and disciplinary reasons. And that's as it should be.
-HC-
1. This was a military tribunal. There was no jury. There were no lawyers. He was tried by officers and fellow soldiers, who, if anything, will err on the side of their brother. Why do you think you know better than they?
2. If you don't understand how a killing in war can be a crime, you haven't considered the meaning of the word "war." What separates war from murder? What makes it OK for a man to intentionally kill a person in one context but not another? Why is it OK for a uniformed soldier to kill an enemy, but if a civilian does so it's classified as terrorism? By definition, war is violence with rules.
Those rules are broken routinely, of course, but if we don't at least try to enforce them we become no better than anyone else. And to this point, American troops have almost always been damned good. Populations conquered by the Germans and Japanese were stunned by the treatment they received by American troops, and for the most part the Iraqis have been treated well. Would you give all of that up in your mindless defense of an American soldier without knowing what he's actually done?
And finally, if what angers you most about the insurgents is their depraved willingness to kill indiscriminately, why should we hold our soldiers to their standard rather than our own?
The US military has clear and simple rules of engagement. If you break them, you're liable for the consequences, for moral and disciplinary reasons. And that's as it should be.
-HC-
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Intel processors crashing Unreal engine games (and others)- Started by BFG10K
- Replies: 2K
Facebook
Twitter