I have not studied Haditha in detail, however until something is proven, the troops deserve to be considered innocent. After all, where do people like Murtha get the guilty until proven innocent attitude? It seems to me that if charges have been dropped, there were no sufficient grounds for the charges.
Or witnesses would not fly to the US from Iraq.
I wonder if you feel strongly about the innocent until proven guilty thing when it applies to people other than soldiers. I wonder if dropped charges would be enough to convince you of innocence for every day folks.
Anyhoo, here's some reading on Haditha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings
First of all, I will try to explain something that should not need explaining.
Wartime situations are totally unlike a civilian case, so I firmly believe the threshold of proof of atrocities, or the burden of proof should be much higher. This country has sent these soldiers there. They did not go to the country of their choice, nor are they doing what they would normally do if they have the choice of what to do. The situation is totally a result of the mission, the country that sent them, and the command that trained them and that are in charge of their operation. These men are trained to react to certain situations appropriately. They are acting on the behalf of the country, not themselves. They are now in harms way, and are trained to kill or capture any enemy combatant.
Secondly, in Iraq, the enemy combatants are not dressed in uniforms, they look like other civilians, and they do not drive tanks, jeeps, or other vehicles marked with their insignias. They do not reside in Terrorist army issue tents or live in barracks marked "Terrorists" or "Insurgents." They live in houses, walk the streets, and are found around women and children, and use women and children in their missions. Sometimes, women and children are one with them.
Now, place yourself in the situation where you and your fellow soldiers are hit with a roadside bomb and come under fire. You react to what and where you believe is the source of the enemy and you fight against it, and attempt to quell it, eliminate it, and remove it, not only in self defense but as part of the mission to defeat the enemy. In the heat of the moment, there is always uncertainty in terms of getting everything right about who is the enemy and where the fire was coming from, but this is part of the situation you have been placed in, not your choice, and you simply have to make those decisions as part of the mission.
You are then called a murderer by members of Congress that sent you to Iraq in the first place, and you are brought up on charges of murder. What do you think, Free Duck, how would you feel then? And who is really to blame here? How would you feel, sitting in prison for a few years for doing pretty much what you were trained to do?
And what if you are acquitted of charges, as you should be if there is lack of evidence you did anything wrong. Would you like at least an apology from Mr. Murtha?
okie how many people have you killed in your life? I'm just curious.
okie wrote:First of all, I will try to explain something that should not need explaining.
Wartime situations are totally unlike a civilian case, so I firmly believe the threshold of proof of atrocities, or the burden of proof should be much higher. This country has sent these soldiers there. They did not go to the country of their choice, nor are they doing what they would normally do if they have the choice of what to do. The situation is totally a result of the mission, the country that sent them, and the command that trained them and that are in charge of their operation. These men are trained to react to certain situations appropriately. They are acting on the behalf of the country, not themselves. They are now in harms way, and are trained to kill or capture any enemy combatant.
Secondly, in Iraq, the enemy combatants are not dressed in uniforms, they look like other civilians, and they do not drive tanks, jeeps, or other vehicles marked with their insignias. They do not reside in Terrorist army issue tents or live in barracks marked "Terrorists" or "Insurgents." They live in houses, walk the streets, and are found around women and children, and use women and children in their missions. Sometimes, women and children are one with them.
Now, place yourself in the situation where you and your fellow soldiers are hit with a roadside bomb and come under fire. You react to what and where you believe is the source of the enemy and you fight against it, and attempt to quell it, eliminate it, and remove it, not only in self defense but as part of the mission to defeat the enemy. In the heat of the moment, there is always uncertainty in terms of getting everything right about who is the enemy and where the fire was coming from, but this is part of the situation you have been placed in, not your choice, and you simply have to make those decisions as part of the mission.
You are then called a murderer by members of Congress that sent you to Iraq in the first place, and you are brought up on charges of murder. What do you think, Free Duck, how would you feel then? And who is really to blame here? How would you feel, sitting in prison for a few years for doing pretty much what you were trained to do?
And what if you are acquitted of charges, as you should be if there is lack of evidence you did anything wrong. Would you like at least an apology from Mr. Murtha?
IIRC, under the UCMJ, you are not innocent until proven guilty. Am I incorrect?
They wouldn't be up on murder charges if they hadn't killed a bunch of innocent people, in their houses. You can't react to an attack by simply gunning down anyone who is near you. That's the reality of Iraq. I understand it puts the soldiers in a tough position, but that's the position that they are in.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:
You are then called a murderer by members of Congress that sent you to Iraq in the first place, and you are brought up on charges of murder. What do you think, Free Duck, how would you feel then? And who is really to blame here? How would you feel, sitting in prison for a few years for doing pretty much what you were trained to do?
If I was trained to kill people in their homes, and I did that, I would feel like crap for becoming a murderer, not because some pork-ass congressman called me one.
But as long as we're role playing... what if you were a woman caring for her children and parents in poor neighborhood in Iraq that is crawling with insurgents. What if some soldiers, pissed because they lost someone to a roadside bomb, then rushed your house, killing your elderly parents and some of your children. You have to live there, you had no recourse, there was nothing you could do to protect yourself and you had no alternative but to sit there and watch your family die, and then die yourself. The soldiers who killed your family signed up to come to your country and got paid to be where they were. You didn't. And now, because you are not around to tell the tale and because your neighbors, who witnessed the event, can't travel to the US, no-one will be held accountable for your death.
There are two sides to this mess. The soldiers will have an opportunity to prove they didn't do what they're accused of. Iraqis, however, are tried by the business end of a service weapon. I don't blame soldiers for the fact that we are at war, but they signed up for it. And if they messed up, they ought to pay for it. Anything else tarnishes the entire military.
Yes, but you have to remember FD that Okie doesn't give a damn for the Iraqis at all. They weren't murdered, b/c you can only murder people.
Cycloptichorn
FreeDuck wrote:
There are two sides to this mess.
Correct on that.
Quote:The soldiers will have an opportunity to prove they didn't do what they're accused of. Iraqis, however, are tried by the business end of a service weapon. I don't blame soldiers for the fact that we are at war, but they signed up for it. And if they messed up, they ought to pay for it. Anything else tarnishes the entire military.
Its a war zone, Free Duck. As I said, the threshold and burden of proof should be higher in regard to acts of war. Any reasonable person I think would agree with that. Are you reasonable? Somewhat like policemen that may overreact at the apparent sight of a weapon and shoot first to ask questions later, which is much different than a civilian being involved in an incident. If done in the line of duty, accidents, if that is what this is, I don't honestly know, but should not be a crime.
I believe liberals allow their dislike for the military and war to override any balanced and reasonable assessment of these types of things. They have also allowed the phony soldiers and phony stories to taint or create a bias in their mind in regard to these cases, that it is somehow commonplace for soldiers to murder civilians and finally we have a case we can throw the book at these murderous soldiers. They would sooner believe the accounts of Iraqi civilians that may be sympathetic to terrorists or insurgents than their own fellow citizens.
And charges have been dropped against at least some. If the charges were so clearcut and all of the guys were so obviously guilty, then they would not be dropped. I believe they deserve an apology from the pathetic John Murtha, who should not even be in Congress in the first place, if Democrats actually cared about clearing out corruption and corrupt Congressmen.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yes, but you have to remember FD that Okie doesn't give a damn for the Iraqis at all. They weren't murdered, b/c you can only murder people.
Cycloptichorn
Knock off the uncalled for nonsense, cyclops. I thought you were better than that.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Yes, but you have to remember FD that Okie doesn't give a damn for the Iraqis at all. They weren't murdered, b/c you can only murder people.
Cycloptichorn
Knock off the uncalled for nonsense, cyclops. I thought you were better than that.
The minute I see ya display an ounce of compassion for people who, sitting down to dinner in their house, had a US soldier storm in and gun them all down, I will knock it off.
The 'war zone' is a creation of ours. We made their house into a war zone. We don't get excused b/c we created a situation in which they might be killed.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:
Its a war zone, Free Duck. As I said, the threshold and burden of proof should be higher in regard to acts of war. Any reasonable person I think would agree with that. Are you reasonable?
I like to think I'm reasonable but no, I don't agree. You're asking for the burden of proof to be higher only for our soldiers, something Cyclops pointed out is actually opposite the case as they are subject to a different judicial system which requires a lower burden of proof -- both for our soldiers and others.
Quote:Somewhat like policemen that may overreact at the apparent sight of a weapon and shoot first to ask questions later, which is much different than a civilian being involved in an incident. If done in the line of duty, accidents, if that is what this is, I don't honestly know, but should not be a crime.
Well, I think that people whose actions have the force of law should adhere to a higher standard. I know I'm in the minority on this, but again it comes down to people having a choice to accept a position of power/authority. Their lives are not worth more than civilian lives. In fact, in the case of policemen, they are actually being paid to put their lives in harms way to protect civilians. They have choices, they have power, and they have a responsibility to use that power with the utmost care.
I have a hard time looking at the description of events in Haditha and accepting that it was an accident or even normal operating procedure. Why the charges were dropped I don't know, but that doesn't mean what happened didn't happen.
Quote:I believe liberals allow their dislike for the military and war to override any balanced and reasonable assessment of these types of things.
Similarly, conservatives allow their dislike of liberals and their worship of the military to override any balanced and reasonable assessment of these things.
Quote:They have also allowed the phony soldiers and phony stories to taint or create a bias in their mind in regard to these cases, that it is somehow commonplace for soldiers to murder civilians and finally we have a case we can throw the book at these murderous soldiers.
Well, in this whole thread, you've named one phony soldier who nobody has heard of. We've discussed one incident which did happen (there were others), but nowhere have you shown that the monolithic "liberals" think these things are "commonplace" and/or hate soldiers.
The one or two people who have faked their background in military service are extended to smear all service members who disagree with the mission at hand. There's a clear pattern of this happening; Solider/officer X writes piece about how f'ed-up Iraq is; conservatives rush in (eh heh) to question the service members' loyalty, patriotism, motives, whatever it takes to discredit their message that the war in Iraq is a gigantic boondoggle and a hopeless mess.
The latest general to speak out spoke of the civilian leaders' 'lust for power.' I'd say that sums up the situation pretty well.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:The one or two people who have faked their background in military service are extended to smear all service members who disagree with the mission at hand. There's a clear pattern of this happening; Solider/officer X writes piece about how f'ed-up Iraq is; conservatives rush in (eh heh) to question the service members' loyalty, patriotism, motives, whatever it takes to discredit their message that the war in Iraq is a gigantic boondoggle and a hopeless mess.
The latest general to speak out spoke of the civilian leaders' 'lust for power.' I'd say that sums up the situation pretty well.
Cycloptichorn
There have been a lot more then one or two.
FreeDuck wrote:
Well, in this whole thread, you've named one phony soldier who nobody has heard of. We've discussed one incident which did happen (there were others), but nowhere have you shown that the monolithic "liberals" think these things are "commonplace" and/or hate soldiers.
I've about given up on carrying on a conversation here with you because you cannot even accurately state what has been discussed. For example, there are far more than one phony soldier discussed on this thread.
More "phony" soldiers, I DON'T THINK SOOOOO. Phony soldiers are the ones who know in their heart of hearts that they are/were involved in an illegal and immoral war and don't speak out. Those are the real mysterymen; it's a complete mystery as to how some can be so incredibly naive.
Quote:
The Real Iraq We Knew
By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
Quote:
The Real Iraq We Knew
By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html
There is an incredibly valuable lesson here. The world has as much or more to fear with respect to American incompetence as it does with American military power.
But there is also some light in this. All this military power [scary in and of itself; like putting a gun in the hands of a two year old] means squat. The USA can't actually win any conflict that they get themselves tied up in.
Vietnam was an abject failure for the US and Iraq is turning out to be worse for these incompetent bunglers.
The truly sad part though is that they, without even a scintilla of remorse, waste the lives of so many innocent people and cause untold suffering for many many more.
The lights of this shining "beacon" turn out to be nothing more than a few tawdry glow-sticks.
Fine, you can debate the war, whether it was necessary, how to fight it, or if we should get out, but the point of this thread is to try to inject more realism and honesty into what is actually going on in Iraq and with our soldiers. Your debate has been and is being discussed and worked out in Congress, so contact your congressman. The liberal candidate, Hillary, voted for the war, and now speaks out of both sides of her mouth on the issue, depending upon who she is talking to. So if you are so against the war, I would suggest you vote for Obama or somebody that will withdraw the troops immediately.
I decided to look into this Limbaugh ebay auction today, auctioning off the letter sent him by Democrats in Congress, decrying his phony soldiers comment. It is up to 2.1 million now with about an hour to go.
I went back and checked it out on Media Matters and then listened carefully to the entire tape I think 3 times, and a fourth of the crucial part of it. After the first caller called about having been a soldier and opposing the war, a second caller called and disagreed and the conversation moved onto how the press views the war, etc. The key to the tape is when the second caller made a comment about the press not wanting to talk to real soldiers and would rather talk to soldiers that come up out of the blue to talk to the media. At this point Limbaugh said "phony soldiers." The conversation then wandered off and a minute or so later, Limbaugh talked about phony soldiers, one example Jesse MacBeth. The whole point was that the media loves the Jesse MacBeth type stories and they will jump on such stories because it fits their template. John Kerry set the standard way back in the early 70's and it continues today.
After listening to this in detail and being familiar with Rush and what he says about these things, I believe Media Matters is totally off base and the Democrats have now made a fool of themselves again.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709280009
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260170172469
JTT wrote:Phony soldiers are the ones who know in their heart of hearts that they are/were involved in an illegal and immoral war and don't speak out.
maybe you're right regarding hindsight, however, i think it's foremost the job of civilians to speak out against illegal wars.
with soldiers it's a little more complex. on the one hand, it's the duty of a soldier to protect the constitution, and disobey illegal orders (even orders that go against treaties the united states is part of.)
on the other hand, soldiers also have a job to protect each other. i do *not* mean justifying atrocities, i mean protect each other from immediate danger. i won't hold a soldier accountable if he didn't have time for politics because he was busy laying cover fire to keep one or more of his brothers from being killed.
my sentiments start to overlap more completely with yours when soldiers and former soldiers get involved with politics, but only the politics of justifying illegal wars. that might seem like a subtle difference, but to me it's pretty straightforward. if you have time to justify what's illegal, you have time to cry out against it.
