Thread on Caledonia?

[lenharper]

This "whole new phase of warfare" has been standard operating proceedure since 1964 (or the American Revolution, if we wanna go that far back) so let's not pretend that this is a whole new game. Vietnam gave us numerous examples of combatents dressed as civilians and dealing with this unseen enemy is part of American military training -- go check of the base in the southern US where American soldiers have been training since the war in the Balkans -- for a very long time now.

No doubt, the coalition forces in Iraq are dealing with some seriously bad shit there and I am more than willing to admit that I'm damn glad I'm not there.

But that in itself does not mean that we should write our soldiers a blank cheque. If the alleged facts are shown to be true, I agree with Trunc. These soldiers should be tried as war criminals. This is not said with any sense of joy.

And if you are saying I should STFU becuase I have not had any personal experience with the issue I think that is a very narrow minded view as to what people should be allowed to comment on. Unless you want to really suprise me and tell me that you are indeed an elected politician, perhaps you should refrain on making comments about the accomplishments and failures of our Liberal and Conservative governments.

 

[danmand]

Now it is radically different. While it is unfortunate , in a way, that these collateral casualties happen, they have always happened in war and that will not change.

You just don't get it. These are not collateral casualties. It was murder, and the marines will be tried by the military authorities.

And you are wrong in saying that these things happen in war. They rather happen during occupations, which is one reason many europeans abhorred the idea of occupying Iraq, They still have collective memories from when they were occupied by Germany, and rounding up of civilians as appraisals happened.

 

[LancsLad]

This "whole new phase of warfare" has been standard operating proceedure since 1964 (or the American Revolution, if we wanna go that far back) so let's not pretend that this is a whole new game. Vietnam gave us numerous examples of combatents dressed as civilians and dealing with this unseen enemy is part of American military training -- go check of the base in the southern US where American soldiers have been training since the war in the Balkans -- for a very long time now.

No doubt, the coalition forces in Iraq are dealing with some seriously bad shit there and I am more than willing to admit that I'm damn glad I'm not there.

But that in itself does not mean that we should write our soldiers a blank cheque. If the alleged facts are shown to be true, I agree with Trunc. These soldiers should be tried as war criminals. This is not said with any sense of joy.

And if you are saying I should STFU becuase I have not had any personal experience with the issue I think that is a very narrow minded view as to what people should be allowed to comment on. Unless you want to really suprise me and tell me that you are indeed an elected politician, perhaps you should refrain on making comments about the accomplishments and failures of our Liberal and Conservative governments.

I can agree that there have been non-uniform wearing guerilla combatants for a long time, but they were the exception, not the rule. In Iraq every one of the emeny is dressed as a civilian.

Perhaps my view is influenced by experience but so is everyones. Having worn the boots , although not for awhile, I tend to side with the rifleman that is deep in the shit, and give them a wide latitude. Perhaps using the phrase STFU was a little harsh but this whole thing is a major hot button for me and when posters like scroll and tov post their crap it gets to me. Maybe I am a neanderthal from the past with no place in todays touchy feely apologist society but I have a strong sense of protecting our way of life and as such quite readily side with those on the front lines doing so.

 

[LancsLad]

You just don't get it. These are not collateral casualties. It was murder, and the marines will be tried by the military authorities.

And you are wrong in saying that these things happen in war. They rather happen during occupations, which is one reason many europeans abhorred the idea of occupying Iraq, They still have collective memories from when they were occupied by Germany, and rounding up of civilians as appraisals happened.

So you agree with the Vichy?

 

[lenharper]

Believe me, I like Burger King better'n Burka's and KFC better'n Kirpans but "our way of life" or "the way of life I chose to defend" does not include reprisal killings of civilians.

That said, I can understand your POV and also agree that posters like TOV, Scroll and others of similar ilk from the "right" side of the political spectrum do nothing to further the debate.

 

[danmand]

So you agree with the Vichy?

No, I am against occupation, not for it.

 

[Anbarandy]

Of course it is terrorism for a group of soldiers to go to 2 houses and kill all inhabitants. Even the Marine commander and the senate arms commitee members call it murder in cold blood.
It is worth noting, that it is exactly the same scenario Saddam Hussein is being tried for.

Of course you know it is terrorism. Anything else is invalid.

Murder in cold blood has been determined? Sounds like prejudging before justice has been able to run it's constitutional course.

Yes, the marines are the incarnation of Saddam, or so you say.

 

[Anbarandy]

Hey Anbar

I guess I'll give you points for stating the bloody obvious. Everything you said in your post is correct. But you know what, it doesn't matter...

Split all the semantical hairs you want but the fact remains, either out of "revenge' because their "tender psyche was damaged" or because they were pissed because one of their own was killed, a group of marines took it upon themselves to kill a number of unarmed civilians.

I was trying to give them some credit by saying it was to instill fear in the civilian population because at least there would be some point to that.

I was also responding to your fellow Neandrathal who was stating that this was a result of "soldiers doing their job". I believe this action, if it is found to be true, falls well outside a soldier's job description.

Hey lenharper,

In the same vein with which your post was directed to me I respectfully supply the following vein:

Mitigating factors, circumstances, and evidence do matter when determining and administrating justice. The rush to prejudge is your right, but it is not it does not make it fact let alone determined justice. Funny little concept of 'splitting semantical hairs' as you characterized it, is all a part of the adminstration of justice.

Love your Neandrathal reference. Engaging in denigration by use of labels as you have amply demonstrated is the hallmark of the paucity of reasoned debaters. Can't you fling sound, objective arguments instead of lacking in reason labels?

I've read a few of your other posts. You make good arguments without the labels and apparent antagonistic nature of this quoted post.

Of course if the facts are determined to be true by the judicical process, then the actions of the marines clearly exceeded their rules of engagement, their legal obligations, and their moral judgement.

 

[Anbarandy]

lets just give it a rest Len. we all sit here at our computer keyboards nice and safe, maybe with a coffee or cool beverage and rant away. You and the others are too quick to judge these young men. There is no possible way for you to imagine what their life is like, the stress of never knowing who will take a shot at you next is a whole new phase of warefare.

It must be difficult for young men, many younger than my son, to be trained to engage and kill then sent out to act like police and goodwill ambassadors. As they walk down a street the child smiling at them one minute may just as easily trigger a body bomb the next. It is not cut and dried.

During my time in the military the "enemy" was a very clearly defined Soviet Union and warsaw Pact. All of our training was in the sphere of a conventional engagement with uniformed opposition that you could identify. Even though we and the Warsaw pact were opposed to each other the basic rules of war that had existed for centuries applied. The combatants wore uniforms and non-combatants didn't. There were always exceptions but that was generally the case. Sure we had the twists like learning to function in those damned CBW and radiation suits. Looking back I can't imagine that they would have made any difference. Bullets and shrapnel sort of defeat the seal. First aid training for nuclear blasts seems almost funny now but was deadly serious at the time. But the point was we were taught it is kill or be killed. The idea was to make the other guy a hero who died for his country. You tend to loose your individuality and function as a unit. You, your buddies, squad,platoon, company etc. Any urban training that we did was again based on the premise of fighting a regular army with uniforms and similar training to us. That was then.

Now it is radically different. While it is unfortunate , in a way, that these collateral casualties happen, they have always happened in war and that will not change.

So you can call me a neanderthal all you want but unless you have been in the position these young men are in then STFU.

Good post my fellow Neandrathal! How dare we disagree with some on this board! Be ready to be labelled!

 

[Anbarandy]

it is difficult? there is no doubt about that. war criminals? bullshit. did they contravene standing orders and the military code of justice? thats for the investigating officer to decide and prefer charges. Can there be mitigating circumstances? yes. Can such circumstances absolve them? again- without knowing the facts- no determination can be made. But if they did commit a criminal act, then they must be punished. The standards and responsibilities in the military are high and in many cases unfair. but they are important to be upheld nonetheless.

Really agree with the comments by red. Fair, balanced, reasoned, objective. no rush to prejudge based upon news reports, pre-conclusion investigations, allegations, and commentary.

 

[danmand]

Of course you know it is terrorism. Anything else is invalid.

Murder in cold blood has been determined? Sounds like prejudging before justice has been able to run it's constitutional course.

Yes, the marines are the incarnation of Saddam, or so you say.

Easy now, I was just repeating the words of a member of the US senate arms committee.

And I can easily see how something like that can happen. It happened in previous occupations. That is why occupations are terrible.

 

[lenharper]

Good post my fellow Neandrathal! How dare we disagree with some on this board! Be ready to be labelled!

I called Lance a Neandrathal because I was responding in kind. He's told me to "piss off" and shut up in other posts. When he responded with a post that was not confrontational I figured we'd reached a point where we could agree of disagree with civility.
ta ta