On January 24 2012 09:44 liberal wrote: Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
^ Yup. Most insightful comment in the whole thread.
If you want a "discussion" and academic debate you have to frame it as such, as opposed to another knee-jerk reaction thread to a news story. This is, in fact, a very complex social, psycological, and diplomatic issue.
On January 24 2012 09:44 liberal wrote: Not sure what kind of discussion we can actually have here. But this isn't so much a discussion thread as a "let's criticize the US again" thread. I'm sure you will get at least one or two Americans who will say something ignorant and bait everyone to argue against them.
^ Yup. Most insightful comment in the whole thread.
If you want a "discussion" and academic debate you have to frame it as such, as opposed to another knee-jerk reaction thread to a news story. This is, in fact, a very complex social, psycological, and diplomatic issue.
No it's not a complex situation. It would've been such if it came from a smaller country. The US can, and will do / get away with whatever it wants in international politics, as been shown. Quite simple, really.
On January 24 2012 21:11 Pika Chu wrote: Maybe it's because soldiers are suffering psychological trauma, so they cannot be held truly responsible for their acts? But still, why not at least discharge him?
I believe this sets a very bad precedent, even in WWII sometimes commanders chose to punish people who fired at innocent civilians (i know of a few stories that happened in Romania).
Maybe I'm cynical but I think it's more like "We don't want to punish them too harshly because it might scare others off from enlisting."
I have no doubt they would punish someone who knowingly and deliberately targeted civilians. But as long as they are seen as basically good guys who made a mistake they'd rather protect them.
Well, that was expected. I dont get why US citizens are criticizing this on the internet instead of organizing protests though. Really, it doesnt take a genius to figure out decisions like this are directly supporting terrorism and thereby endangering the lives of US civilians. An upsurge of protests from the US public would clearly be the most effective way to fight terrorism, but I guess it wont happen and terrorists all over the world will have an easy time pointing out the ignorance of US people and recruiting new ppl to kill americans. To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
It is only logical a country that justifies a war against another country to put their own countrymen as better and more important than those they are fighting against. It is regretable but logical to understand.
On January 24 2012 22:18 SolidMotion wrote: If those who say those soldiers should have gotten much worst have never done any form of REAL military training then I am sorry but you are not qualified to debate on this matter. War is not a game, you never know when you could be ambushed when your not in safe zones. I only did the training for the Canadian reserve and when we did the simulator near the end of training it was fucking crazy. You're so tired it's hard to make good decisions since you have only slept 4 hours during the past 48 hours, the sound of artillery (even though they're fake) is crazy, you really feel where the impact comes from.
I'm sorry, but if I saw someone who was with me during training get blown up in pieces by a bomb when I'm super tired and exhausted as well as paranoid given the circumstance, I might, and you as well, act like that.
**Edit: O.o
First, you should not be allowed in the military if you cannot do the job. Modern military should be required to be able to do more than kill everyone in sight. Second, nothing of what you say is in any way any excuse of what he did, it might be used to lower the sentence slightly, but that is it.
The thing is the military doesn't have a great choice of who can be allowed in. Especially in 2005 with no end to the Iraq war in sight, recruitment was having a hugely hard time keeping up with demand. Soldiers who had served their tours were being asked to continue long past the time when they thought they would be freed from their obligations. National Guard troops were being sent to active combat zones. At that time you either had to be incredibly patriotic or down on your luck to be considering the military, and the military basically took who it could get. We were even considering formalizing the acceptance of illegal immigrants and felons into the army at that time.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
Ahm... He's german? How do you know from which part? Or if he was even alive "back" then... Are you calling the DDR (east germany) = UDSSR = Russia? Of which incident do you speak where Russia (or the US) went on a killing spree against german civilians?
On January 24 2012 22:08 Pika Chu wrote:I'm going to puke. Imagine a war in netherlands, imagine it under occupation, imagine the thousands of dead, the ruined cities, the millions of broken dreams. Do you actually understand that WAR IS NOT A VIDEO GAME? WAR KILLS PEOPLE! Have you ever spoken with one of your elders who's been in war?
The good old Ron Paul commerical approach.
What if Chinese forces were executing babies, live, on the evening news in Holland? Well I do believe I would disagree with such an action, perhaps send an angry letter or two.
You're one of the most superficial posters on tl.net and i've seen that over time. You're always up in balls about free speech no matter the costs. Would you live in poverty and misery being happy you're free to say whatever you want? Maybe you're really passionate about it but i doubt it. I doubt you'd rather live your life in a weel chair (because of a bomb) and be able to speak freely than live healthy in a totalitarian regime.
Take my money, take all of it.
I wish i had a hundred legs so i could lose them a hundred times over. I value my freedom of speech more then money or health. Living isn't even worth it if I was not allowed to speak my mind.
But maybe trinkets and money are all it takes for you to shelve over your freedom. A free hospital here and a free education there and you will sing whatever song the great leader wants you to sing, dance any dance he wants you to dance.
Saddam's criminal regime wouldn't have managed to destroy as many lives (and by destroyed live i also think of parents who lose children, losing your loved one, losing your parent, brother, friends) as this war did not in a hundred years. The people of Iraqi did not revolt against Sadddam, there was no revolution, there was a war that was uncalled from the iraqi people. Were iraqis content of getting rid of saddam? Yes, they would've wanted to see him gone probably! But would they wanted to pay this price? No, definitely not at this costs!
Saddam killed more people then the Iraq war did. Even if we disregard all the murders in his prisons, all the political executions, all the deaths by torture.
Saddam committed a genocide on the Kurdish people, causing easily as many victims as the Iraq war did. Saddam started a war with Iran and a war with Kuwait. Not in a hundred year? Saddam had already caused many times over the ammount of casualties from the Iraq war.
And you're making a paralel about east germany? When was east germany attacked? Do you even know the history of it's "revolution" right? They used protests to get rid of their rulers, not bombs. They yelled "Gorbi, help us" when Gorbaciov had a meeting with east germany ruler (i forgot his name). They went out on the streets and said what they want! How can you make a paralel between the two?
They were lucky, the USSR hesitated.
Saddam and his regime didn't hestitate. Any signs of an uprising were broken. Broken being a euphemism for the torture of everyone that took part and their families just to make a point.
If one of saddam's sons took over it would be hellhole right? What the hell is it now? A paradise? Being afraid of being blown up on the streets? Would you live there?
Edit: sorry for the off topic but i just had to...
I wouldn't live in Iraq, obviously. Why would I want to live in a country that has a lower standard of living and less freedom?
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
Oh, no I would not disagree with your statement; I would say this is a fair analysis.
However dihilde was basically saying that this incident will directly result in more terrorists. (He also claimed protesting would defeat terrorism, not sure where that came from) The point I was trying to make is that the situation is so very much more complicated that that. I'm sure many Iraqis were outraged and angry about the killings, but they are not all radical islamists who are going to pick up guns and become terrorists. The violence in Iraq is so much more complex than that, you have former Sadam supporter, Sunni versus Shia violence, groups like Al-Quada in Iraq fighting against what they percieve and US and Isreali influence, and many more I'm sure.
On January 25 2012 01:03 diehilde wrote: To be frank, if my country was occupied by a foreign military power and shit like this happened Id be hungry for blood and revenge too.
Um... it was. Many times, some quite recent. That is, assuming that your profile is accurate. So tell me, how many Russians have you killed in vengence?
You really are over simplifying the issue.
It's an observation. People close to you get hurt, you get angry. It's a fact of life. Just read through some of the threads where someone commits a horrible crime. There's always someone who says that death is too lenient a punishment for them. And that's in cases where we don't even know the victim.
One of the roles of the justice system is to provide a more civilized outlet for our lust for vengence. You take that away and some people will find their own way.
You can say that it's wrong or that they aren't targeting the wrong people but you can't deny it's based on a basic human instinct.
Oh, no I would not disagree with your statement; I would say this is a fair analysis.
However dihilde was basically saying that this incident will directly result in more terrorists. (He also claimed protesting would defeat terrorism, not sure where that came from) The point I was trying to make is that the situation is so very much more complicated that that. I'm sure many Iraqis were outraged and angry about the killings, but they are not all radical islamists who are going to pick up guns and become terrorists. The violence in Iraq is so much more complex than that, you have former Sadam supporter, Sunni versus Shia violence, groups like Al-Quada in Iraq fighting against what they percieve and US and Isreali influence, and many more I'm sure.
Proving something like "this will directly result in more terrorists" is impossible. But on the whole it's somewhat likely that it will. And I agree that violence in Iraq is a more complex issue and terrorism in general even more so. But you can evaluate the effects of this incident in isolation.
It depends on what you think his point was. If he meant: "This is what causes terrorism, period", then I disagree too. If he meant: "Do less of this and we'll have less terrorism", then I think he's probably right.
Guess what, you want an adversarial legal system where the defense can use myriad delaying tactics and take the fight to the media, you have to accept that good lawyers and a media circus will sometimes cause cases to be dropped, or charges amended, or whatever. It doesn't mean that lives are less valued or something. The alternative is railroading people into jail.
The problem with the alternative is that it isn't always, and is usually almost never, the "right" people who get railroaded. And once you open that door just an inch, other people start trying to throw it wide open until you have innocent people left and right being thrown in jail.
On January 25 2012 03:24 DeepElemBlues wrote: Guess what, you want an adversarial legal system where the defense can use myriad delaying tactics and take the fight to the media, you have to accept that good lawyers and a media circus will sometimes cause cases to be dropped, or charges amended, or whatever. It doesn't mean that lives are less valued or something. The alternative is railroading people into jail.
Seems you people have no problem throwing away the legal system when its so called "terrorists" here. Indefinite detention, due process free assassination, drone strikes, renditions are all evidence that Americans don't give a shit about justice, they only give a shit about protecting their own and killing the "others".
This verdict does mean that Iraqi lives are less valued. The fact that he wasn't even discharged from the military after 6 others were given immunity to prosecute this one guy is a testament to the fact that the UCMJ is a piece of trash.
Maybe worth adding to the OP, honestly i'm sickened, how the fuck do you get away with this?
'A simple US military statement hinted at the bloody chain of events that the attack started - though subsequent scrutiny showed it to be far from the truth. It said: "A US marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha.'
And how are you able to try hide it and then everything be totally fine once the truth is revealed?
agreed redviper, and i'm a veteran of that war. These guys are garbage and trash and should've been summarliy executed. No sarcasm. This verdict shames all of the services and all of America.
The amount of ...deriliction prevelent in this case through and through speaks of corruption and vileness of which i'd hoped our country was better. Worse is that in todays paper this got a 15-25 word blurb I hardly noticed. Sad.
EPT
