Collateral Murder

[kai]

I think the fact that the Govt. will send under equipped troops into combat says it all.

I heard a story about some RIR troops bumping into some paras in Afghanistan. Apparently it was like they were from a different army. It's a big cod.

yep a cods a big fish man

 

[Aquitaine]

I think the fact that the Govt. will send under equipped troops into combat says it all.

I heard a story about some RIR troops bumping into some paras in Afghanistan. Apparently it was like they were from a different army. It's a big cod.

I've heard that a Traffic Warden earns more than a soldier, if that's true, then it just says it all really.

 

[sandandfoam]

yep a cods a big fish man

LOL
something fishy about it allright

On a related but different tack. You might let me know about this -
Soldiers are often presented as patriotic heroes. Following grand ideals.
Insofar as one can generalise I am under the impression that people join for a vast range of reasons from it'll be a laugh to it's a job to patriotism.
I am under the impression that politics isn't an issue for most young lads in the army, they're young, professional and will fight wherever they're told. Politics is not their deal - it can't be.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

[emphasis added] I totally agree with the whole post. As for the underlined part, I also agree (unless they have been trained adequately for that purpose, we have some obligation for security and the civilian population wants soldiers there). well we have an obligation for security dont we?

By occupying hostile civilian populations or trying to intercede in civil wars that do not involve us, we are setting our soldiers up to fail and setting the civilians up to be bullied and endangered. we allowed the envireonment for sectarian violence i wouldnt say it was a (civil war) by ousting Saddams regime so we have an obligation to provide security until they can provide it themselves.

Like I was trying to say earlier, foreign occupation of hostile civilian populations is an evil institution, just like monarchy and slavery. The troops in His Majesty's army could have been highly excellent individuals asked to do a very difficult job, it doesn't matter, the British Empire was still a basically evil system because it sets up good people for failure and sadistic people for success. George Orwell was a good man, nevertheless he admitted how his role as a British officer in India and the tension between himself and the locals made him want nothing more than to bury his bayonet in an Indian man's stomach. I don't say George Orwell was an evil man, I conclude, as Orwell did, that the institution of Empire brings out the evil in otherwise good people. Throughout history, there have been many benevolent and excellent kings and slave-owners, kings are often given the impossible task of saving their country, they are under threat of assassination, etc. It's not about the personal qualities of kings that I am worried about, it's the institution of monarchy and the institution of Empire and military occupation.I][

Whats empire got to do with it? and dont forget chaos brings out the evil in people too we caused the choas by creating a law and order vacuum so it was our responsibility to put that right. And i would like to say its not the service men and women who created that vacuum its the politicians who did not consider well enough what the heck we were going to do once we ousted the Baath party that controlled everything that was simmering in Iraq with a jackboot.

I pretty much agree, the only thing I would add is we don't have a responsibility to provide security indefinitely. At some point, it is not our responsibility nor *capability* to prevent them from having a civil war. But this is a moot point since an agreement has already been made for withdrawing a lot of (if not all) US troops. All I was saying is that foreign military occupation is evil, just as war is evil, our primary goal should always be avoiding these things or ending them.

 

[kai]

I think the fact that the Govt. will send under equipped troops into combat says it all.

I heard a story about some RIR troops bumping into some paras in Afghanistan. Apparently it was like they were from a different army. It's a big cod.

do you mean the royal Irish stephen? and i guess the Paras had better kit but i might be wrong

 

[kai]

I pretty much agree, the only thing I would add is we don't have a responsibility to provide security indefinitely. At some point, it is not our responsibility nor *capability* to prevent them from having a civil war. But this is a moot point since an agreement has already been made for withdrawing a lot of (if not all) US troops. All I was saying is that foreign military occupation is evil, just as war is evil, our primary goal should always be avoiding these things or ending them.

yes i do agree here , i do think though that we are going to see more "policing" type operations in the future

 

[sandandfoam]

do you mean the royal Irish stephen? and i guess the Paras had better kit but i might be wrong

Yes to both

 

[kai]

LOL
something fishy about it allright

On a related but different tack. You might let me know about this -
Soldiers are often presented as patriotic heroes. Following grand ideals.
Insofar as one can generalise I am under the impression that people join for a vast range of reasons from it'll be a laugh to it's a job to patriotism.
I am under the impression that politics isn't an issue for most young lads in the army, they're young, professional and will fight wherever they're told. Politics is not their deal - it can't be.

where i come from politics isn't the deal for many youngsters in or out i don't think its the topic of conversation on Friday nights where i live anyway. There are some guys mind who do have political views their not all Oafs like me but they don't let it interfere with their job. well they wouldn't be in the job if they did really.I certainly didn't.

I don't think we really get the chance to think about it much, and some times you can get a bit mystified by press reports etc. and you do think what the hell is this all about? when you see people blowing their own people to pieces. most of my service was overseas or waiting to go overseas so your on stand by and you go, Your not totally ignorant but your well and truly on your way to do the job you have been trained to do .

Of course i can only speak from my own experience. and i did ask a Csgt once what we were doing in Bosnia and he said " because you are"

 

[kai]

Yes to both

yes i thought so, well the ( its so hard to keep from swearing here) thing is there's not enough good kit to go around so it all depends on your deployment , the Paras are rapid deployment and very often are at the dirty end of the stick and as the best we deserve the best ha ha, but really i mean all of us deserve kit whatever colour your lid

 

[sandandfoam]

yes i thought so, well the ( its so hard to keep from swearing here) thing is there's not enough good kit to go around so it all depends on your deployment , the Paras are rapid deployment and very often are at the dirty end of the stick and as the best we deserve the best ha ha, but really i mean all of us deserve kit whatever colour your lid

A comparison of the paras to pampered racehorses springs to mind .
I think there's something darkly humurous about it. Along the lines of we're so incredibly tough and self reliant we need better kit than the mere plebs. But of course I've got a sad sense of humour.

 

[JMorris]

I believe you have unrealistic expectations for the conduct of soldiers in the middle of a war. They are our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, perhaps your uncle or cousin. They are away from home, scared to death, that's right! scared out of their wits but have the courage to confront those fears and perform with a high degree of excellence.

their volunteers, not conscripts. they chose to be away from home, to be scared to death, and to be placed in these situations. they chose to take part in unnecessary wars against people who were neither a threat, or threatened to be (with the exception of afghanistan imo). and as a result of their choice they sometimes get injured or killed. and as a result a great many innocent civilians get injured or killed. war is hell, but its also a choice.

The military should never have to perform the task of law enforcement or peace keepers. That is not what they are trained to do. Our military should be a mean lean fighting machine that when unleashed should be able to perform their duties with severe prejudice.

the military should never commit unprovoked invasions of nations. nor should they occupy nations.

Yes it is time for the troops to come home,

that would certainly help to lessen the number of civilian deaths that they/we are responsible for.

 

[Kathryn]

What you and Kathryn aren't getting is that this is not about the personal merits of individual soldiers. This is about policy, leadership, and justice.

But this is precisely what I was incensed about.

The video and the spin on it - from the media to some of the people on this thread - was about the actions of individual soldiers.

Are we talking about individuals or about policy? I think we're talking about INDIVIDUALS when someone posts "Death to American soldiers!" Hmmm, that would be my three children. Sounds like individuals to me, and that was the post that prompted me to respond on this thread, and describe the actions and experiences of another individual soldier - my son.

If we're talking about policy - then let's limit the discussion to policy and quit focusing on the actions of a few soldiers, highlighted on a highly edited video of an event that we cannot put into context with the limited, and suspect, information leaked along with the video.

But this thread wasn't started on policy - from the start it focused on individual soldiers.

 

[Kathryn]

LOL
something fishy about it allright

On a related but different tack. You might let me know about this -
Soldiers are often presented as patriotic heroes. Following grand ideals.
Insofar as one can generalise I am under the impression that people join for a vast range of reasons from it'll be a laugh to it's a job to patriotism.
I am under the impression that politics isn't an issue for most young lads in the army, they're young, professional and will fight wherever they're told. Politics is not their deal - it can't be.

Now THIS is right on the money.

 

[Caladan]

Now THIS is right on the money.

I have a different experience. many of the guys who served with me analyzed the scenarios politically many times. perhaps its the nature of the service here, you are not serving thousands of miles away from your land, you work to secure your own nation directly. your nation has a baggage of decades long conflict in the region, which your parents and grandparents took part in. you know that no matter what social background you come from, when you turn 18 you go on uniforms. you could come from a leftist home, right wing home, traditional or secular home, but you'll still find your self in the military melting pot.

 

[Aquitaine]

their volunteers, not conscripts. they chose to be away from home, to be scared to death, and to be placed in these situations.

Only thing is though, with a certain number of soldiers it's more of an Economic conscription since the Military is the only viable choice for a semi-decent wage. Atleast with the Americans at COB Basra.

 

[JMorris]

Only thing is though, with a certain number of soldiers it's more of an Economic conscription since the Military is the only viable choice for a semi-decent wage. Atleast with the Americans at COB Basra.

a willingness to kill in exchange for a monetary reward. such an excuse dosent impress me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But this is precisely what I was incensed about.

The video and the spin on it - from the media to some of the people on this thread - was about the actions of individual soldiers.

Are we talking about individuals or about policy? I think we're talking about INDIVIDUALS when someone posts "Death to American soldiers!" Hmmm, that would be my three children. Sounds like individuals to me, and that was the post that prompted me to respond on this thread, and describe the actions and experiences of another individual soldier - my son.

If we're talking about policy - then let's limit the discussion to policy and quit focusing on the actions of a few soldiers, highlighted on a highly edited video of an event that we cannot put into context with the limited, and suspect, information leaked along with the video.

But this thread wasn't started on policy - from the start it focused on individual soldiers.

One person said "Death to soldiers" which is so obviously wrong and unhelpful it doesn't deserve a serious reply. The OP is about the video posted and that individual case. I pointed out that this type of tragedy *will happen* when foreign forces are occupying a hostile population, for the reasons (among others) that you, Rick, and kai gave: the soldiers are scared, it's a difficult job, there are always some "jerks", they are sent as "young kids", etc. Of course, if you send young kids with assault rifles from Baghdad to occupy New York City, there are going to be "incidents" probably far worse than what already occurs with the NYPD, only there would be less transparency and accountability, and the reverse is also true.

I am simply taking a very tiny, and moderate step and concluding that, because of all these considerations, we need to do everything we can to avoid or end occupation just as we avoid or end war. This cannot be a controversial conclusion, can it?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I am simply taking a very tiny, and moderate step and concluding that, because of all these considerations, we need to do everything we can to avoid or end occupation just as we avoid or end war. This cannot be a controversial conclusion, can it?

Thanks for taking a moderate step on this issue. I was for the war years ago. It is time to bring the boys and girls back home now. Enough is enough.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think you can reasonably argue that the sort of thing that happens in the video is not a fairly common and widespread practice for combat troops these days.

Salon Radio: Spc. Josh Stieber on WikiLeaks video - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Follow-up points on the WikiLeaks video - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Iraq slaughter not an aberration - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

In modern warfare, civilians make up most of the casualties.

 

[Alceste]

This is a good point here, 'cause I believe the majority of the anti-war crowd speak up and hold their veiws not as some sort of disrespect on the troops, but because they do not want the nation's soldiers to be put into harms way for a totally pointless, illegal invasion with no afterplan and one which was waged on pure lies. Or in the case of Afghanistan, a totally over-the-top response to terror groups in the area, and an attempt to try and bring the many tribal factors of Afghanistan under one centralized (and corrupt) government. Whilst being propped up by countries with a total oppoiste way of life and customs.

It's not some sort of spitting on the soldiers, it's the total opposite - it's respect for the soldiers, enough respect not to want them to be sent to their deaths for the Plutocrats pulling the strings.

Exactly this. I don't agree with professional soldiers' with respect to the inherent value of a human life, but that difference of opinion means I believe their life has the same inherent value as the lives of the inevitable civilian casualties wherever our soldiers are sent to do combat. I don't want to see Canadian boys (and girls) needlessly killed, and I don't want to see them needlessly killing others. I'm glad we have an army and I respect soldiers, but I preferred to see them contributing to UN peacekeeping missions rather than taking sides in a foreign internal conflict.

Why are we wasting Canadian lives propping up Karzai? The majority of Afghans don't recognize his authority anyway. As soon as we leave, the country will fall to whatever warlord or Taliban leader can build a broad enough coalition to take Kabul. So what are we going to do about it? Never leave? How many of our fittest young men and women will have to die in the futile effort to stabilize and control this region, knowing the odds are that we will fail (because every other empire in history has already tried and failed)? How much good could those brave young people be doing elsewhere, providing security in war torn regions and aid to people devastated by natural disaster?