View Full Version : USA marines, war crimes, caught on video...
Yep, they were dumb enough to actually smile for the camera while doing it.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1/iraqiwar.rm
Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.
There is no way any soldier in the world lets an enemy combatant with a gun within arms reach live. No war crime committed.
Njorl
russ_watters
Dec12-03, 11:59 AM
Looks to me like he was trying to get up when he was killed.
Believe it or not, this scenario is debated extensively in military ethics classes. There is even a really good PBS debate on the subject. Essentially though, the rule is that if there is any chance at all he's capable of firing a gun at you, he's still a combatant you can shoot him. Trying to get up after being shot qualifies as still a combatant.
And the response from the Marine Captain is a good one.
And the response from the author of the site shows he doesn't know what he's talking about - or maybe that he knows he's wrong and is trying to distort the facts to make something from nothing.
Jeez, that was creepy. Granted, maybe they needed to kill him, but it looks more like fun and games, killing non-persons.
BoulderHead
Dec12-03, 01:02 PM
I thought it resembled a turkey shoot.
It’s impossible to know what was on the guys mind as he was moving. He may have only wanted to crawl out of harms way, but he may very likely have decided to grab his rifle and carry it off with him too, so as to continue fighting. I think the killing was justifiable. In the interview which followed I noticed breaks and splices, so I have to conclude that what the soldier said was being put together to make him look as inhumane as possible.
My philosophy is that if you’re going to take up arms you should expect the absolute worst from your opponent.
The_Professional
Dec12-03, 04:08 PM
I didn't see any weapons beside the Iraqi and nothing was mentioned. However, there was also a noticeable break during the interview and this is not the complete footage. It's easy to distort the facts.
I'll keep an open mind
Originally posted by Njorl
Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.
There is no way any soldier in the world lets an enemy combatant with a gun within arms reach live. No war crime committed.
Njorl
You're out of your tree.
1) I was a soldier.
2) The victim was a wounded, fallen enemy, and thus comes under the particular law: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. It can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument
Believe it or not, this scenario is debated extensively in military ethics classes.
No, it isn't. There is no debate. We rigidly follow the law.
There is even a really good PBS debate on the subject.
Oh, well, if there's a PBS debate about it...
Essentially though, the rule is that if there is any chance at all he's capable of firing a gun at you, he's still a combatant you can shoot him.
Essentially, you're wrong. The law in question is here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument
Trying to get up after being shot qualifies as still a combatant.
No, it doesn't.
And the response from the Marine Captain is a good one.
No, it wasn't. I have never been impressed by US officers.
And the response from the author of the site shows he doesn't know what he's talking about - or maybe that he knows he's wrong and is trying to distort the facts to make something from nothing.
I was just about to say that about you. Justifying murder. Ridiculous.
Originally posted by Zero
Jeez, that was creepy. Granted, maybe they needed to kill him, but it looks more like fun and games, killing non-persons.
Remember the "Highway to Hell" from outside Kuwait, during Desert Storm? I read an interview with one of the Apache pilots who was there. According to him, they treated it all like a video game, "blast the bad guys!", and so on. It took him a while to figure out what he had actually done. That's what these idiot kids were doing.
Originally posted by BoulderHead
My philosophy is that if you’re going to take up arms you should expect the absolute worst from your opponent.
So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.
Soldiers follow the law. Officers guide their men along a lawful and just path through a terrible but sometimes necessary situation.
Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.
I've never been in the military, so I may be talking out of my butt. However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do.
The way those soldiers acted was immature and stupid, I'll venture that. There was nothing funny, or worth cheering about in that situation. they are morons who have never see the cold hard truth of a war they aren't winning.
You can just set those lawful quotes and UN regulations aside. This is war son, there are no rules. The only rule is to win and live.
However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do.
Then you would be an armed thug, not a soldier. And no, it is not what any man would do.
You can just set those lawful quotes and UN regulations aside. This is war son, there are no rules. The only rule is to win and live.
Pure bollocks. You've been watching too many Rambo movies.
Just standing there, waiting for a chance to kill someone, like it is a game...wow, that guy is such a hero to shoot a wonded man in the back while he tries to crawl away on his belly. And then, all his friends cheer his extreme bravery. What they didn't show is how they celebrate later. Later on in the day, these heroes kidnap and rape a couple of preteen Iraqi girls, since it is war and we can throw all those pesky rules of law aside.
BoulderHead
Dec13-03, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Adam
So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.
Soldiers follow the law. Officers guide their men along a lawful and just path through a terrible but sometimes necessary situation.
Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.
Adam,
I actually agree with Zero that it was repulsive and looked like sport (which is why I called it a turkey shoot). You claim to have been a soldier but then you should know that worrying about "the law" is the last thing going through a soldier’s mind during a fire fight.
I’m not condoning their behavior; I was/am opposed to this invasion, but neither do I believe in the fallacy of ‘civilized’ warfare. I think it is nonsense for people to pretend they have a moral high ground while engaged in war, especially so if they are the one's who initiated the hostilities. I think this is just another way people rationalize away responsibility in order to continue believing they are somehow better than a murderer. My personal feelings are that the people who go along with and condone war are the dangerous ones in this world, and I don’t care which side they are on. They are, and have always been, the one’s who can be rallied by one means or another to kill their fellow man.
The way those soldiers acted was immature and stupid, I'll venture that. There was nothing funny, or worth cheering about in that situation. they are morons who have never see the cold hard truth of a war they aren't winning.
Absolutely, but this is to be expected when you put a rifle into the hands of a teenager and then send him out to kill. The older folks are to blame, too, as they are the ones that put him in such a position.
So if you take up arms, you should expect the worst from others? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the intentions of others, only yourself.
I really don’t understand you here. You have just said in effect that what goes on inside my mind has nothing to do with the intentions of others. Isn’t this obvious enough that it doesn’t need to be mentioned? I applied not knowing the intentions of others to the movements of the Iraqi soldier just prior to his being used for target practice by zealous youths; they couldn’t have known what he intended either, so better to kill him now then let him crawl behind the corner of that building where he might be able to kill one of them five minutes later.
Armed thugs make excuses and justifications.
Isn't that pretty much what the US has been doing from the start?
[:D]
You claim to have been a soldier but then you should know that worrying about "the law" is the last thing going through a soldier’s mind during a fire fight.
Australian F18 pilots were used in the invasion of Iraq. They even led bombing missions. At one point an Australian pilot led an attack against a moving ground target, which US intelligence had said was a valid target. However, the pilot, upon seeing the target himself, was unable to confirm that it was indeed a valid target. He thought it might have been a civilian transport. So against orders from his commanders, he called off the strike, and the planes went home.
One of the very first things we were taught when we started with rifles was to keep our fingers outside the trigger-guard until we were absolutely positive of our target. In other words, unless you know the target is valid, you don't even put your finger on the trigger.
I’m not condoning their behavior; I was/am opposed to this invasion, but neither do I believe in the fallacy of ‘civilized’ warfare.
Why call it a fallacy? Why not simply make certain your target is valid before you pull the trigger? There is a reason why the USA has something like 50% casualties from friendly fire, and why they just killed 15 little kids in Afghanistan this week. There is a reason why Australia does not have this problem. Some people accept the ridiculous idea that it is impossible to exercise caution in war. We don't.
I think it is nonsense for people to pretend they have a moral high ground while engaged in war, especially so if they are the one's who initiated the hostilities.
I agree that the invaders have no moral high ground. However, I think those involved in war can, in the right circumstances, have the moral high ground. For example, my granfather fought the NAZIs and the Japanese in WW2. I think his effort was absolutely necessary for the freedom of the world. They actually did face an aggressive nation which was out their conquering everyone.
Absolutely, but this is to be expected when you put a rifle into the hands of a teenager and then send him out to kill. The older folks are to blame, too, as they are the ones that put him in such a position.
Yep. Bush is quite happy to send other peoples' kids to war.
I really don’t understand you here. You have just said in effect that what goes on inside my mind has nothing to do with the intentions of others. Isn’t this obvious enough that it doesn’t need to be mentioned?
It was mentioned earlier as a justification for shooting people. "I have a gun, and I don't know what that person is thinking, so it's okay for me to shoot him." I was merely pointing out that the excuse is entirely without reason.
I applied not knowing the intentions of others to the movements of the Iraqi soldier just prior to his being used for target practice by zealous youths; they couldn’t have known what he intended either, so better to kill him now then let him crawl behind the corner of that building where he might be able to kill one of them five minutes later.
He was an injured, fallen enemy soldier. The law is clear. He should have been taken into custody and sent to a hospital. He should not have been shot as though being prepared for Thanksgiving dinner.
Isn't that pretty much what the US has been doing from the start?
Unfortunately, yes.
I have a personal theory that people in the USA (no doubt people from that country will object before considering this) are not emotionally equipped to deal with violence. Their culture has kids sitting in front of TVs watching the good guys kill the bad guys without remorse, and Playstation games with more of the same. Their military training is all "Hoo-yah! Go Team!" Even rap music their sells itself with a fairytale image of street-gangs and playing with guns. I think the result of all this is a total misconception about violence and its consequences. It results in Apache pilots shooting at lines of cars and thinking of it as a game. And kids on Hummers shooting "the bad guys" and thinking it doesn't matter.
russ_watters
Dec13-03, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Adam
No, it isn't. There is no debate. We rigidly follow the law.
Heh. Sorry, I took my military ethics classes at the Naval Academy (we actually watched the PBS special in one of our weekly ethics semiars). We most certainly did debate the issue because it as not as simple as you (and the website host) are trying to make it. After Mai Lai, ethics became a very important part of military training in the US. Perhaps Australia hasn't yet seen the need for it. He was an injured, fallen enemy soldier. The law is clear. He should have been taken into custody and sent to a hospital. Only if it was SAFE for the American soldiers to do that. If he was setting up a bomb like the report said, it was NOT safe to take him into custody.I've never been in the military, so I may be talking out of my butt. However, If I'm in combat, it's kill or be killed. It's my life or his. I will shoot him if he APPEARS to be attempting to reach for that gun. A wounded soldier is still capable of firing a weapon at me, given enough opportunity. Those are my ethics, that is what I would do, and what I would expect ANY man to do. That is EXACTLY how the laws Adam is citing work.
BTW, I do agree with you guys about the way these soldiers acted - cheering is despicable, but understandable. However the conduct relevant to the battle was in accordance with US and international law.
Originally posted by Adam
You're out of your tree.
1) I was a soldier.
2) The victim was a wounded, fallen enemy, and thus comes under the particular law: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949. It can be found here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument
So, if a wounded enemy picked up his gun and started to point it at you, you would not shoot him? I think you would.
When can you shoot a wounded enemy? If he has a gun pointed at you, certainly. If he has a gun pointed at your fellow soldiers, or the charges you are defending, certainly. The man in question was concious, moving and had a gun right next to him. The soldiers who shot him had no reason to believe that the wounded man would not continue to fight. Any soldier in that situation must act with the realization that they might die any time. If the soldiers in question failed to shoot the wounded man, and were killed themselves by unseen enemies, the wounded man might very well have picked up his gun and shot either American soldiers or Iraqi civilians. They would have failed in their duty.
The rules of war you cite are to protect those wounded reduced to non-combatant status.
Njorl
So, if a wounded enemy picked up his gun and started to point it at you, you would not shoot him? I think you would.
That wounded man laying on the ground was not pointing a gun at anyone. He wasn't even armed.
The rules of war you cite are to protect those wounded reduced to non-combatant status.
Like a guy shot and rolling around on the ground, without a weapon?
Originally posted by Adam
That wounded man laying on the ground was not pointing a gun at anyone. He wasn't even armed.
Like a guy shot and rolling around on the ground, without a weapon?
The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him. He is visibly able to move. He can grab his gun and shoot in less than a second. He is not surrendering. If his gun were not near him, if he surrendered, if he had been knocked unconcious it would have been wrong to shoot him. None of that happened.
Njorl
The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him.
Irrelevent.
He is visibly able to move.
He is visibly rolling around in pain. That is quite different to being able to pick up a gun and go Rambo on people.
He can grab his gun and shoot in less than a second.
If you had been shot, and were rolling around in agony, could you grab the gun, turn to face the other way, and shoot, in less than a second? Do you know the extent of his injuries?
He is not surrendering.
He's been shot. He's laying on the ground, squirming in pain, facing away from people who speak another language. What chance did he have to stand up and say in English "I surrender!"?
If his gun were not near him, if he surrendered, if he had been knocked unconcious it would have been wrong to shoot him. None of that happened.
No. What did happen was that he was shot, injured, squirming in pain, unarmed, being attacked by people who don't speak his language. And while laying there on the ground in pain, injured, some cowboys having a laugh decided to execute him.
Tell me this. If the marines had been standing right over the injured man, would it have been acceptable to put an M16 against his head and pull the trigger?
If you had been shot, and were rolling around in agony, could you grab the gun, turn to face the other way, and shoot, in less than a second?
People do.
Do you know the extent of his injuries?
No. Neither do you. Nor did the soldiers who shot him. He may have been stunned by pain from which he could quickly recover or he may have been crippled and mortally wounded. A soldier is not expected to make that judgement on the battlefield.
Njorl
People do.
Really? Outside of movies?
No. Neither do you. Nor did the soldiers who shot him. He may have been stunned by pain from which he could quickly recover or he may have been crippled and mortally wounded. A soldier is not expected to make that judgement on the battlefield.
That's why we have laws. You don't assume, you don't gamble, you don't play cowboy. You follow the rules.
ya outside of movies; it is called adrenaline. [;)]
but that doesn't change the fact that the group of solders standing behind cover with their guns pointed at the guy could have easly waited for a clear sign of hostility before fireing. by law, they should have waited as they could have done so without puting themselves in danger. but then they would have missed out on all cheering and that "good" feeling that comes to them when they shoot wonded men floundering on the ground. [:((]
Mattius_
Dec15-03, 06:49 PM
First of all, I dont trust video cuttings.
Now, Im not completely denying the existence of this act, but i am weary of the complications around it.
Second,Adam, Can you describe the difference between a wounded man with no cruel intentions and a wounded man with the intention of killing thuroughly to all of us here. So, as he was lying on the ground, tell me the exact physical movements he was making that told you that he wasnt a threat. Think about the science here, the soldier took 3 shots to hit the guy, a wounded person with the intention of killing could easily have got a few shots off before he got pelted.
Third, I know someone who fought in Afghanistan. One day he was on patrol when a hostile native, who had an ak-47, took an 8 yr old hostage. My friend, with a few of his comrades, didnt fire. Then, the native shot the 8 yr old in the head, and my friend opened fire. They killed the guy, and almost got court marshalled for it because technically the native wasnt firing at the US troops. Now your gonna tell me our current rules of war are too rigid?
Lastly, quit *****ing about cruel 'American ways' because we are all humans. All humans are vicious, ignorant, and petty. Please dont come in here with your bigotry against other peoples.
russ_watters
Dec15-03, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Adam
He wasn't even armed.
Originally posted by Njorl
The site to which you linked clearly states that his gun is right next to him.
Originally posted by Adam
Irrelevent. Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, thats called a LIE. Njorl caught you in a lie. Please. Try to be less transparent with your lies. We're not stupid here. Tell me this. If the marines had been standing right over the injured man, would it have been acceptable to put an M16 against his head and pull the trigger? No. That would be murder. But that clearly was not the situation at hand.That's why we have laws. You don't assume, you don't gamble, you don't play cowboy. You follow the rules. The way the law works is that you can assume he is a combatant unless he clearly is not. The law requires you to look out for your own personal safety and the safety of your comrades and bystanders BEFORE that of your enemy.
Since you like hypotheticals, if the CO of that unit had told the troops to cease fire, sent them to take the man into custody, and he had killed any of them, the CO would be court martialed.
Adam, I'd like to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about here, but clearly there is more to it than that. When you lie about the facts, you are displaying your bigotry - your irrational (mean sounding word, but it simply means not based on facts and reason) hatred for Americans.
I have to agree adam, you are sounding pretty biggoted. It is war, not happy go lucky play time. The nice enemy soldier doesn't get a "timeout" because he's wounded. You talk about civilized war. That's a contradiction in terms. War is not civilized, no matter how you sugar coat it. The fact we can agree on is that they are at war, and that solidier would no doubt kill them, if he was able to. Just because he is wounded doesn't mean he isn't capable. When you know you're about to die, you can do some pretty extreme things. Weather or not he was able to do so, you can't make that assumption that he's safe, or you will die fast and hard on the battlefield. That isthe reality of war. There's no "second chances" or "be nice". If that were an actual option, there would be no war in the first place, because we could all just sit down and talk this out.
This reminds me of Saving Private Ryan. Remember the german they caught, and then they let him go because he was an inconvenience? What happened? He found his way back to the germans, got recirculated and ended up killing the captain at another fight. All because they were trying to be "civillzized" and not just kill him. That is the reality of war, that is the scenario that frequently plays itsself out.
Lyuokdea
Dec15-03, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Adam
I have a personal theory that people in the USA (no doubt people from that country will object before considering this) are not emotionally equipped to deal with violence. Their culture has kids sitting in front of TVs watching the good guys kill the bad guys without remorse, and Playstation games with more of the same. Their military training is all "Hoo-yah! Go Team!" Even rap music their sells itself with a fairytale image of street-gangs and playing with guns. I think the result of all this is a total misconception about violence and its consequences. It results in Apache pilots shooting at lines of cars and thinking of it as a game. And kids on Hummers shooting "the bad guys" and thinking it doesn't matter.
Wow, another amazingly unwarrented statement. Have you ever even been to America? Surely someone like myself for instance, who has been in the country for his entire life, may be more able to make an assesment of American people. The idea that we are all gung ho is a stereotype every bit as wrong as thinking that everybody from austrialia looks like the crocodile hunter.
Also, I have a friend of mine who was ambushed in Iraq by insurgents about two months ago, he was lucky to escape with only hearing loss and some small cuts and such, but the officer he was driving was killed. Are you trying to say that U.S. troops who have been going through situations like that for 6 months should be held responsible for shooting an Iraqi who looked to be reaching for his gun? Your analysis that a moving soldier who may be moving for a gun falls under the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is not only completely wrong, it is also a ridiculously high standard to put on soldiers who are forced to make split-second life and death decisions. This peace loving philosophy cannot be applied to the world of split second decisions, you do not have the time to decide whether the action is moral or not, you only have time to do something.
Lastly the assumption that war can be pretty and honorable only masks the horror of war and allows the bloodshed to continue. War isn't pretty, nobody I've ever talked to who has been through the hell of combat has ever said that war can be governed by rules. What would happen if every time an enemy soldier fell to the ground, everybody instantly stopped shooting at them? The enemy would start to fall to the ground intentionally and then pull another weapon and start firing again. Don't try to cover up war and pretend that it can be made sterile, and don't bring your self-rightousness into a debate about an issue so ugly.
Second,Adam, Can you describe the difference between a wounded man with no cruel intentions and a wounded man with the intention of killing thuroughly to all of us here.
The difference is not between the two possible intentions the wounded man may have had. The difference is between the soldiers obeying the law, and being redneck cowboys. As I have explained, what real soldiers do is approach the target with guns ready, secure the weapon, make sure the target is not a threat, and then start first aid. What thugs do is shoot and cheer.
So, as he was lying on the ground, tell me the exact physical movements he was making that told you that he wasnt a threat.
1) He was in the open.
2) His weapon was not in his hands.
3) He was wounded.
4) He was well covered by US troops.
Now, any one of those four conditions could apply to any Iraqi civilian at any time. Oh yeah. 8000+ of those died too. That says something, doesn't it?
Think about the science here, the soldier took 3 shots to hit the guy, a wounded person with the intention of killing could easily have got a few shots off before he got pelted.
1) The marine was a crappy shot. Given his clear intention to kill, he should have been able to get an instant kill at that short range.
2) I suggest you re-evaluate your idea of the science of the situation. The man was wounded and laying face-down, head pointed away, much of his weight on his elbows. Do me a favour. Get down on the ground, resting on your elbows. Tie your feet together to help simulate the effects of a gut wound and the inability to move the lower parts properly. Put a stick on the ground out of arm's reach, off to the side. Now see how long it takes you to get the gun pointed at something about a hundred yards behind you.
Third, I know someone who fought in Afghanistan. One day he was on patrol when a hostile native, who had an ak-47, took an 8 yr old hostage. My friend, with a few of his comrades, didnt fire. Then, the native shot the 8 yr old in the head, and my friend opened fire. They killed the guy, and almost got court marshalled for it because technically the native wasnt firing at the US troops. Now your gonna tell me our current rules of war are too rigid?
I think you'll find that the laws of war count that guy as a valid target.
Lastly, quit *****ing about cruel 'American ways' because we are all humans. All humans are vicious, ignorant, and petty. Please dont come in here with your bigotry against other peoples.
How many innocent civilians were killed by Australians in that little war? Zero reported. How many friendly fire incidents were caused by Austrailans? Zero reported. It's not a matter of bigotry. American training is just not good enough. In particular, the psychological preparation.
Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, thats called a LIE. Njorl caught you in a lie.
Nice to say, but show me. Quote the lie for me.
The law requires you to look out for your own personal safety and the safety of your comrades and bystanders BEFORE that of your enemy.
It does? Show me this law.
Since you like hypotheticals, if the CO of that unit had told the troops to cease fire, sent them to take the man into custody, and he had killed any of them, the CO would be court martialed.
No, he wouldn't.
Adam, I'd like to think you simply don't have a clue what you are talking about here, but clearly there is more to it than that. When you lie about the facts, you are displaying your bigotry - your irrational (mean sounding word, but it simply means not based on facts and reason) hatred for Americans.
Wow. I've heard this before. Criticise anything about the USA or its government or people or Hollywood or anything, and some twist starts yelling "Bigot!" Grow up. Forget the ad hominems and focus on the words I have actually typed.
I have to agree adam, you are sounding pretty biggoted.
DO you know how pathetic it is when all people can do is yell "Bigot!" any time they feel the slightest bit uneasy about their state? Give it up. Cease the ad hominems and focus on the actual content.
It is war, not happy go lucky play time. The nice enemy soldier doesn't get a "timeout" because he's wounded. You talk about civilized war. That's a contradiction in terms. War is not civilized, no matter how you sugar coat it.
How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military.
The fact we can agree on is that they are at war, and that solidier would no doubt kill them, if he was able to.
That is an assumption which leads to war crimes tribunals. More likely the man would surrender in the hopes of receiving medical treatment.
Just because he is wounded doesn't mean he isn't capable. When you know you're about to die, you can do some pretty extreme things.
That depends entirely on: 1) how you are wounded; 2) which Hollywood movies you like.
Weather or not he was able to do so, you can't make that assumption that he's safe, or you will die fast and hard on the battlefield.
Tell me something. When the police in your town pull someone over, do they shoot tehm immediately, just in case, and have a laugh about it? Or do they keep their weapons prepared and try to secure the subject? Remember, before you answer, that a cop will die as fast from a crmiinal's bullet as a soldier will from an enemy soldier's bullet.
That isthe reality of war. There's no "second chances" or "be nice".
There are, however, My Lai massacres and such. And the fact that Australians caused no civilian deaths or friendly fire incidents in that invasion. Think about it.
This reminds me of Saving Private Ryan. Remember the german they caught, and then they let him go because he was an inconvenience? What happened? He found his way back to the germans, got recirculated and ended up killing the captain at another fight. All because they were trying to be "civillzized" and not just kill him. That is the reality of war, that is the scenario that frequently plays itsself out.
Absolutely. Those who escape a battle may indeed run off and rejoin their comrades, and come at you again. However, the laws of war specifically state that you can not kill them. If they are unarmed, defeated, and running away, you can not shoot them. And no, I do not recall the specific law; it was years ago when I read it.
Wow, another amazingly unwarrented statement.
Why?
Have you ever even been to America?
Yes.
Surely someone like myself for instance, who has been in the country for his entire life, may be more able to make an assesment of American people.
Actually I find that impartial outside observers are more reliable, as they ahve less emotional attachment.
The idea that we are all gung ho is a stereotype every bit as wrong as thinking that everybody from austrialia looks like the crocodile hunter.
I'm well aware that not every American is gung-ho. Their military training, however, is all like their college football training. "Ra ra ra! Go team! Hooyah!" Mass-produced, mindless automatons. And yes, I have worked with the USA military, and the military forces of other nations, many times.
Also, I have a friend of mine who was ambushed in Iraq by insurgents about two months ago, he was lucky to escape with only hearing loss and some small cuts and such, but the officer he was driving was killed.
I'm very sorry your friend was damaged.
Are you trying to say that U.S. troops who have been going through situations like that for 6 months should be held responsible for shooting an Iraqi who looked to be reaching for his gun?
Absolutely. And it is a hell of a stretch to say he was reaching for his gun. The gun was off to his side. To me, it looked more like he was trying to crawl away from the marines, and with good reason. They shot a wounded man in the back, executed him. The Australians have been there as long as the Americans, and, once again, have had zero reports of civilian casualties, and zero friendly fire incidents. Think about it.
Your analysis that a moving soldier who may be moving for a gun falls under the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is not only completely wrong, it is also a ridiculously high standard to put on soldiers who are forced to make split-second life and death decisions.
So why is it wrong? Show me.
This peace loving philosophy cannot be applied to the world of split second decisions, you do not have the time to decide whether the action is moral or not, you only have time to do something.
You underestimate the decision-making capacity of a soldier. Well, of a properly trained soldier.
Lastly the assumption that war can be pretty and honorable only masks the horror of war and allows the bloodshed to continue.
Did I state that I think war is pretty and honourable?
War isn't pretty, nobody I've ever talked to who has been through the hell of combat has ever said that war can be governed by rules.
Need I remind you once again of the Australian record in Iraq? Basing your opinion on the words of badly trained people who went through hell because they were badly trained is just that, basing your opinion on the words of badly trained people who went through hell because they were badly trained.
What would happen if every time an enemy soldier fell to the ground, everybody instantly stopped shooting at them?
Do you really need a reply to this silliness?
The enemy would start to fall to the ground intentionally and then pull another weapon and start firing again. Don't try to cover up war and pretend that it can be made sterile, and don't bring your self-rightousness into a debate about an issue so ugly.
"War is hell. Innocents die." It's just an excuse, nothing more. Stop spewing it. It's old, and it's wrong.
The Australians have been there as long as the Americans, and, once again, have had zero reports of civilian casualties, and zero friendly fire incidents. Think about it.
Given this statement, I would think that the Australians are participating little if at all in conflict.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Given this statement, I would think that the Australians are participating little if at all in conflict.
You would be wrong.
For the education of those who don't know much about the various types of fighting forces, try the essays of Brian Ross at: http://www.vwip.org/topictop.html
russ_watters
Dec16-03, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Adam
Nice to say, but show me. Quote the lie for me. I did! It does? Show me this law. You posted it!No, he wouldn't. COs get court martialed for not protecting their troops. That is part of their job. You have a VERY distorted view of how warfare and the military work. Wow. I've heard this before. Criticise anything about the USA or its government or people or Hollywood or anything, and some twist starts yelling "Bigot!" Grow up. Forget the ad hominems and focus on the words I have actually typed. I did! I quoted your lie! And I've said it many, many times: a negative opinion about the US government doesn't automatically make you a bigot. A negative opinion based on your own lies and personal biases does. How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military. How many Australian soldiers on the front lines in that war?You would be wrong. Hurkyl was asking about Iraq. You responded with a site about Vietnam. How many troops exactly does Australia have in Iraq right now and what are they doing?
You logic is flawed because you imply an equality between the efforts and exposure of the US and Australian forces where none exists.
The_Professional
Dec16-03, 12:47 AM
I watched the video over and over again and it didn't specifically mention of a weapon the Iraqi is holding/about to grab/weapon by his side.
But looking from the distance the Marines were shooting at, adding to the fact that it took them 3 shots to hit him. It would be hard for them to determine whether the Iraqi was indeed holding a weapon or about to grab one.
Originally posted by Adam
DO you know how pathetic it is when all people can do is yell "Bigot!" any time they feel the slightest bit uneasy about their state? Give it up. Cease the ad hominems and focus on the actual content.
Ok I withdraw the bigot statement and simply say that you have no realistic conception about how things are in wartime. It least it seems that way based on your statements here. It's called defending yourself.
How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military.
How many aussie troops committed to Iraq vs how many American troops? And the US wasn't the only country with friendly fire casualties.
That is an assumption which leads to war crimes tribunals. More likely the man would surrender in the hopes of receiving medical treatment.
Now who's seen too many movies? Are there international laws? I'm not arguing against it. But in the reality of actual combat, you have to make split second decision and always put yourself ahead of your enemy. Period.
Tell me something. When the police in your town pull someone over, do they shoot tehm immediately, just in case, and have a laugh about it? Or do they keep their weapons prepared and try to secure the subject? Remember, before you answer, that a cop will die as fast from a crmiinal's bullet as a soldier will from an enemy soldier's bullet.
This comment is stupid, but you seem like you're serious so I'll answer it. OF COURSE NOT because we don't KNOW that every driver is trying to kill us. WE KNOW that every enemy soldier is trying to shoot us. Now I feel stupid just for responding to this.
There are, however, My Lai massacres and such. And the fact that Australians caused no civilian deaths or friendly fire incidents in that invasion. Think about it.
Ya I got that the first time, but AGAIN, run the numbers and percentages.
Absolutely. Those who escape a battle may indeed run off and rejoin their comrades, and come at you again. However, the laws of war specifically state that you can not kill them. If they are unarmed, defeated, and running away, you can not shoot them. And no, I do not recall the specific law; it was years ago when I read it. [/B]
There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.
But regardless of all of that- you get indignant about being called a biggot, yet you're making slurs about the american army, then get defensive when they are responded to. I already acknowledge that thier behavior after the shooting was unacceptable, but I believe they made the right choice. In fact, if they hadn't laughed and cheered afterwards, that clip wouldn't have even been newsworthy.
I did!
No, you didn't. Humour me and post it.
You posted it!
Apparently I did not post what you think I posted.
COs get court martialed for not protecting their troops.
COs can be courtmartialed for being negligent. They will not be courtmartialed for obeying the law.
You have a VERY distorted view of how warfare and the military work.
I guess my time in the military did that to me, yes?
I did! I quoted your lie!
No, you didn't. Humour me and quote the entirety of this supposed lie.
And I've said it many, many times: a negative opinion about the US government doesn't automatically make you a bigot. A negative opinion based on your own lies and personal biases does.
My opinion of US military training is based on my experience working with them, and on the numbers resulting from their activities.
How many Australian soldiers on the front lines in that war?
I believe about 1,200, mainly ground attack strike missions and special forces operations for front line roles.
Hurkyl was asking about Iraq. You responded with a site about Vietnam. How many troops exactly does Australia have in Iraq right now and what are they doing?
1) The site about Vietnam was for Brian Ross's essays, which give a good accounting of the differences between US and Australian forces.
2) Now, we have a ship or two on patrol in the gulf, some pilots flying patrols, and special forces conducting a few missions here and there.
You logic is flawed because you imply an equality between the efforts and exposure of the US and Australian forces where none exists.
Australian troops were in Baghdad three days before US troops got there. Zero civilian casualties. Zero friendly fire incidents.
Originally posted by The_Professional
I watched the video over and over again and it didn't specifically mention of a weapon the Iraqi is holding/about to grab/weapon by his side.
It looks like the rifle on the ground to the man's right, to me.
Ok I withdraw the bigot statement and simply say that you have no realistic conception about how things are in wartime. It least it seems that way based on your statements here. It's called defending yourself.
So you have worked in the military, and worked with the military forces of several nations? Are we receiving the benefits of your experience here?
How many aussie troops committed to Iraq vs how many American troops? And the US wasn't the only country with friendly fire casualties.
I believe the US committed something like 150,000 troops. Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons. Over 8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead. More than half the US soldiers killed in Iraq died after the war supposedly ended. Rate of US deaths by friendly fire this time: 10% (with another 20 deaths under investigation). This is of course better than the 24% in Desert Storm, and the 20% in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math.
Now who's seen too many movies? Are there international laws? I'm not arguing against it. But in the reality of actual combat, you have to make split second decision and always put yourself ahead of your enemy. Period.
See my previous response. The difference is in the training.
This comment is stupid, but you seem like you're serious so I'll answer it. OF COURSE NOT because we don't KNOW that every driver is trying to kill us. WE KNOW that every enemy soldier is trying to shoot us. Now I feel stupid just for responding to this.
Wrong again. During WW2, something like 40% of German and Japanese planes shot down by Americans were shot down by about 1% of American pilots. Most people don't try to kill other people. There are not ravening hordes of angry people foaming at the mouth, desperate for American blood. The world just isn't like that. If you think it is, then you have a very skewed bias.
There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.
Again, soldiers are capable of making decisions. Indeed, that is what officers are actually for.
But regardless of all of that- you get indignant about being called a biggot, yet you're making slurs about the american army, then get defensive when they are responded to.
You're mistaking slurs for observations based on experience and undeniable numbers.
I already acknowledge that thier behavior after the shooting was unacceptable, but I believe they made the right choice.
Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.
2) Now, we have a ship or two on patrol in the gulf, some pilots flying patrols, and special forces conducting a few missions here and there.
I believe the US committed something like 150,000 troops. Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons. Over 8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead. More than half the US soldiers killed in Iraq died after the war supposedly ended. Rate of US deaths by friendly fire this time: 10% (with another 20 deaths under investigation). This is of course better than the 24% in Desert Storm, and the 20% in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math.
In other words, I was right?
How should I interpret those other figures? According to http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html , per year, 36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.
8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead (incidentally, that is a high estimate, based on what I was able to find), but how many military are dead? What's a typical ratio between civilian and military casualties in a ground/urban war? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm gives an interesting baseline.
I can only find statistics on american friendly fire... but percentage of casualties due to friendly fire is not a good statistic; to do any reasonable comparison you'd have to go with the ratio of number of friendly fire deaths per year to the total number of personel. (I'm not even sure that's a good statistic, though, because larger units are inherently more likely to suffer from friendly fire, and this statistic doesn't account for the frequency, type, and intensity of the conflict)
Your turn to do the math. [;)]
In other words, I was right?
Please read the figures again. Here, I'll do the math that was apparently beyond you:
Desertions:
- USA: 1700
- Australia: 0
Friendly Fire:
- USA: 10%
- Australia: 0
Civilians Killed:
- USA: 8000
- Australia: 0
Soldiers evacuated due to mental problems:
- USA: 10
- Australia: 0
36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.
1) I'm glad you think their loss is acceptable.
2) You're quoting an annual figure for Finland.
8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead (incidentally, that is a high estimate, based on what I was able to find),
Actually that is a low estimate. Once again (since you apparently ignore the resources I link to, perhaps to better hold on to your misconceptions), here is a source: www.iraqbodycount.net. Check their sources.
but how many military are dead? What's a typical ratio between civilian and military casualties in a ground/urban war? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm gives an interesting baseline.
Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers. This did not happen. Instead we have a much high ratio of dead civilians.
I can only find statistics on american friendly fire... but percentage of casualties due to friendly fire is not a good statistic; to do any reasonable comparison you'd have to go with the ratio of number of friendly fire deaths per year to the total number of personel. (I'm not even sure that's a good statistic, though, because larger units are inherently more likely to suffer from friendly fire, and this statistic doesn't account for the frequency, type, and intensity of the conflict)
Luckily professionals have done the work for us. I have a declassified report which takes those factors into account, which I will upload to the net tonight. I'll supply the address later.
russ_watters
Dec16-03, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Zantra
There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them. Because of the realities of war, the laws are NOT so stringent that you can be tried for such a battlefield decision. This is the part of the interpretation of the laws that escapes Adam. In a difficult situation to evaluate, the soldier who's actions are being called into question gets the benefit of the doubt. He is allowed to assume the worst when he lacks the information needed to see the situation more clearly.No, you didn't. Humour me and post it. Its on the previous page. The first quote is your lie. The second quote is Hurkyl calling out out on the lie, and the third quote is you trying to brush it aside.I guess my time in the military did that to me, yes? I guess so. That doesn't speak well for what they trained you. I believe about 1,200, mainly ground attack strike missions and special forces operations for front line roles. So what you are saying is that Australia has only a couple dozen ground troops in Iraq and a squadron or two of fighters? So at most, they have a total of about 100 people in combat. We have several hundred thousand. Hmm... so how exactly are Australians going to get themselves into this kind of situation? Life is easy when there aren't any tough situations to deal with. Australian troops were in Baghdad three days before US troops got there. Zero civilian casualties. Zero friendly fire incidents. Doing what exactly? Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math. When you add apples to oranges, you can get banannas, pears, or whatever you want. Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man. You wouldn't have lasted very long. We lost a lot of soldiers in Iraq because of their own decisions not to fire or the rules of engagement preventing them from firing.
I'm SURE you remember the family of Iraqis who were killed at a checkpoint by American soldiers late in the active part of the war. Why did they die? Because several days before, a few Americans gave an Iraqi in a cab the benefit of the doubt and DIED for it when he detonated the bomb in the trunk.
So again, Australians have not been in a situation where they needed to make that choice in this war.Your turn to do the math. The problem with statistics here, Hurkyl is that the numbers are so low they start to lose any meaning. It was statistically safer for a soldier to be in combat in Iraq in 1991 than at home on leave. Does that make war safe? No, it just means that our casualties were extrordinarily low. And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.
Its like the Concorde - until 2 years ago it was statistically the safest airliner flying. Now its the most dangerous. What happened? Its first and only crash. Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers. This did not happen. Instead we have a much high ratio of dead civilians. Now you're starting to get it, Adam. In a war with so few deaths, drawing ratios like that becomes meaningless.
Mattius_
Dec16-03, 03:16 PM
Adam, Russ did clearly point out your lie in his post. It was obvious that you contradicted yourself. Now how credible should we make an incompetent person such as yourself?
Secondly,
Zantra said:
if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.
Then you said:
Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.
This is a great example of natural selection. Zantra blows the guy away, and lives. You dont shoot the guy, get shot yourself, and take your genes away from the gene pool. Evolution at work.
As Russ said, compassion pays a high price.
Now, as for Iraqi military deaths, I recall a high ranking colonel on the O'Reilly Factor to report over 100,000 Iraqi military deaths just before taking baghdad *Source pentagon*.(Im sure he was gagged after that). I would predict the fall of baghdad cost another 25,000 and probably another 20,000 in conflict after largescale war was declared done. So in total, i would predict 145,000 Iraqi military deaths.
Because of the realities of war, the laws are NOT so stringent that you can be tried for such a battlefield decision. This is the part of the interpretation of the laws that escapes Adam.
Actually, you can. This is why the ICC was formed. It's also why the USA refused to sign up. Because of their terrible record regarding just this sort of thing.
In a difficult situation to evaluate, the soldier who's actions are being called into question gets the benefit of the doubt.
An unarmed man, laying face-down, head away, injured... I think the victim would recieve the benefit of the doubt in this case. Especially given the cheering, and the "Hooyah! Go team! Let's kill another!"
Its on the previous page. The first quote is your lie. The second quote is Hurkyl calling out out on the lie, and the third quote is you trying to brush it aside.
The only thing I can see that you might be referring to is my comment about the gun. I asked you repeatedly to show me this alleged lie, but you didn't, so I will assume you are making a ridiculous error in referring to that. Now follow this very carefully. It's not that difficult.
1) The man is unarmed.
2) The gun seems to be visible on the ground to his side.
3) The man is UNARMED.
4) The gun is irrelevent since THE MAN IS UNARMED.
Get it yet?
So what you are saying is that Australia has only a couple dozen ground troops in Iraq and a squadron or two of fighters?
As I said, 1,200. That is slightly more than a couple of dozen.
So at most, they have a total of about 100 people in combat.
They do not release data on the precise numbers involved in special forces operations.
Doing what exactly?
The same as always. Preparing the way for the American troops. Scouting the situation, laying markers, et cetera.
When you add apples to oranges, you can get banannas, pears, or whatever you want.
Zero civilian deaths. Zero friendly fire incidents. Talking rubbish about fruit won't change that record.
We lost a lot of soldiers in Iraq because of their own decisions not to fire or the rules of engagement preventing them from firing.
No, you lost a lot of people due to 1) normal deaths from warfare, 2) bad training, 3) ultimately, because a politician made it happen.
I'm SURE you remember the family of Iraqis who were killed at a checkpoint by American soldiers late in the active part of the war. Why did they die? Because several days before, a few Americans gave an Iraqi in a cab the benefit of the doubt and DIED for it when he detonated the bomb in the trunk.
Indeed, I do remember the incident, and several others like it. The machine-gunner opened up on the car without orders. After the shooting stopped, his sergeant said "Congratulations. You just killed a family." The sergeant, you see, knew enough to do something other than shoot at the first sign of anything moving. However, due to terrible training, the soldier did not wait for order; he just fired.
So again, Australians have not been in a situation where they needed to make that choice in this war.
You do realise that Australians have been in almost every war the USA has fought since WW1, yes? Plus a few extras?
The problem with statistics here, Hurkyl is that the numbers are so low they start to lose any meaning. It was statistically safer for a soldier to be in combat in Iraq in 1991 than at home on leave. Does that make war safe? No, it just means that our casualties were extrordinarily low. And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.
Ah, so saying they don't make sense is the easy way to brush it under the rug. Right.
Now you're starting to get it, Adam. In a war with so few deaths, drawing ratios like that becomes meaningless.
I'm afraid this is the bit that demonstrates how badly you don't get it. Innocent people are dead. That is the bit that matters most. And it is the bit that most needs to be understood.
Adam, Russ did clearly point out your lie in his post. It was obvious that you contradicted yourself. Now how credible should we make an incompetent person such as yourself?
Show me. I really don't see it.
This is a great example of natural selection. Zantra blows the guy away, and lives. You dont shoot the guy, get shot yourself, and take your genes away from the gene pool. Evolution at work.
Or, I don't shoot the guy. Myself and my comrades approach, guns ready, kick the man's gun furtehr away, make sure he is secure, then apply first aid.
As Russ said, compassion pays a high price.
I guess we just have different philosophies then. I consider that execution of a wounded, unarmed man a far higher price.
Please read the figures again.
You too:
Americans: 150,000
Australians: 1200
1) I'm glad you think their loss is acceptable.
2) You're quoting an annual figure for Finland.
Yes. The suicide rate for US military personel is less than that of the average joe in several developed nations. I find that somewhat impressive.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by (1), could you spell it out for me?
Actually that is a low estimate. Once again (since you apparently ignore the resources I link to, perhaps to better hold on to your misconceptions), here is a source: www.iraqbodycount.net. Check their sources.
Actually, the figure I quoted came from the first website I could find on the topic. Until then I had no personal opinion in any direction on this figure. *shrug*
Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers.
No, using my example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead iraqi soldiers.
And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.
You're probably right, but I'm not the one who first brought those figures into the discussion. [;)] Whatever the case, they certainly do not support Adam's position.
Lyuokdea
Dec16-03, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, thats called a LIE. Njorl caught you in a lie. Please. Try to be less transparent with your lies. We're not stupid here. No. That would be murder. But that clearly was not the situation at hand. The way the law works is that you can assume he is a combatant unless he clearly is not. The law requires you to look out for your own personal safety and the safety of your comrades and bystanders BEFORE that of your enemy.
There is what everybody is referring to, first post on page 3. Anyway,
First, off, there are 1200 Australians serving in Iraq, but according to http://slate.msn.com/id/2085428/
Howard noted that Australia would keep in the Iraqi theater a naval task group, an Army commando element ("for a brief period"), two PC-3 patrol planes, two C-130 transport planes, some air-traffic controllers, security for the Australian mission in Baghdad, and a team of experts hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Together, these elements add up to 1,200 personnel.
First off that means that most of the Australian military is not in active combat, secondly those that are are flying fighter planes, meaning that they have probably dropped bombs, and those bombs have probably killed civilians, it is unlikely that large numbers of bombs have been dropped and have not killed any innocents, where are your statistics to the contrary?
Secondly, your accusation of the soldiers for cheering after they killed an iraqi, is while not extremely nice, probably more of a natural response to what is actually going on inside of you after you kill somebody. I'm sure you've been in a pressure situation where you've found yourself being threatened, getting into a cheering or screaming emotional high is not necessarily a result of anything gung-ho or wrong about you.
Mattius_
Dec16-03, 06:55 PM
Good post Lyuokdea.
russ_watters
Dec16-03, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Lyuokdea
Howard noted that Australia would keep in the Iraqi theater a naval task group, an Army commando element ("for a brief period"), two PC-3 patrol planes, two C-130 transport planes, some air-traffic controllers, security for the Australian mission in Baghdad, and a team of experts hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Together, these elements add up to 1,200 personnel. Jeez, I was giving Adam the benefit of the doubt in assuming that his description of the disposition of Aussie forces was more or less accurate. According to that, NONE of them are combat forces: ground, air, or otherwise (maybe the naval forces, but there wasn't a whole lot of naval combat besides firing cruise missiles and launching planes). No special forces, no combat aircraft. Heck, our civilian airline pilots are seeing more combat ferrying cargo to Baghdad (several civilian planes have been hit by enemy fire).
So is this another lie, Adam or do you have a source for your information? Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you can support that: Scouting the situation, laying markers, et cetera. So in other words, NOT firing any weapons? Kinda easy to avoid killing anyone if you don't fire your weapon.
Hey, in last night's Eagles game, I didn't throw any interceptions! I'm a better quarterback than Donnovan McNab!!
Adam...[zz)]
russ_watters
Dec17-03, 12:55 AM
For those actually interested in discussing the ethics of this, it really is a good case study. The debate/discussion on PBS I mentioned (still looking for it) has a portion where the moderator throws just such hypotheticals at a former army captain for reflex reactions. The other members of the panel were all generals and every now and then they disagreed and then discussed the specific case. The cases can actually be fit into somewhat of a spectrum like this:
What if he's standing there shooting at you?
What if he's standing there pointing his gun in the air?
What if he's injured but still holding his gun, but its not pointed at you?
What if he's injured, trying to get up and his gun is lying next to him?
What if he's lying unconscious with his gun on his chest?
What if he's lying unconscious (or dead) with no gun in sight?
Clearly at the top end, you shoot him. Clearly at the bottom you don't. In the middle, it can get VERY tough to choose - and your life DOES often depend on the choice you make in a split-second.
Even at the bottom though, there are assumptions that have been made - some you (or the soldier in question) may not even be conscioius of. Adam made some that I let go, but lets discuss some now:
Does the soldier have a backup weapon? We've been operating on the assumption that he does not, but do we really know that? Is that a reasonable assumption? We don't know and it isn't a reasonable assumption. For your own safety (and the safety of your comrades) you must assume that he does. If he has a grenade, he could simply pull the pin as you come up him to take him into custody. There was the suggestion that he was setting up a bomb - he may have had a way of triggering it within reach.
Does the soldier have any comrades? Ie, is it safe for you to even approach him? Now this isn't exactly related to whether or not you should shoot him, but Adam suggested he actually WAS in custody. From the point of view of the camera in the video, he could have had a comrade within a few feet of him and we might not have been able to see. So it wasn't reasonable to believe it was even POSSIBLE to take him into custody, much less act as if he was already in custody. That may have just been a way for Adam to try to connect rules from a different situation (treatment of POWs) to this one, but in any case, whether its possible to capture him is relevant to whether or not you can shoot him.
How wounded is he? It is virtually impossible to tell from more than 20 feet if someone is dead, unconscious, or just acting. Writing in pain is tougher to fake, but still - what exactly do we know about his injuries from watching the tape? And with shock and adrenaline, even severe injuries might not keep someone from fighting. Read some medal of honor citations (all are available online) for more about what people can do AFTER being mortally wounded.
The ethics of these assumptions is simple: you are allowed to make whatever reasonable assumptions you need to for your own safety and the safety of your comrades. That means you can/DO assume that he has a grenade you can't see. You DO assume he has comrades that you can't see who are able to help him (and kill you) if you try to approach him. You DO assume that he is less injured and more capable of fighting than he appears to be.
It is because of all the things that you don't and maybe can't know that the rules are not that stringent or specific when it comes to evaluating these situations after the fact. You don't ever have the opportunity to capture someone who is naked, alone in the middle of the desert, and has a tranquilizer dart sticking out of his butt to assure he's unconscious. Combat is never that simple.
You too:
Americans: 150,000
Australians: 1200
I don't see why you find this so difficult. Australia's ratio is infinitely superior, literally.
Yes. The suicide rate for US military personel is less than that of the average joe in several developed nations. I find that somewhat impressive.
No, it's not. I did point out that you used an annual figure. The figures for US troops in Iraq is not an annual figure; it's for about six months.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by (1), could you spell it out for me?
In simple terms: It seems you think a certain number of civilian deaths, mental problems, ancient relics destroyed, et cetera, is all an acceptable price to pay for your beliefs.
Actually, the figure I quoted came from the first website I could find on the topic. Until then I had no personal opinion in any direction on this figure. *shrug*
Well, now you know. The low estimate for civilian deaths due to the US invasion is about 8,000.
No, using my example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead iraqi soldiers.
Oops, quite right.
You're probably right, but I'm not the one who first brought those figures into the discussion. [;)] Whatever the case, they certainly do not support Adam's position.
As I said, I have a declassified report which will enable you to see how the figures work, and that they do indeed make sense. I can not upload it from here due to the crappy connection, but I'll try to do it from someone else's house later this week.
There is what everybody is referring to, first post on page 3. Anyway,
Sorry, I don't see how this post by russ_waters shows me lying. The post you quoted is by russ_waters, not by me. What the heck are you talking about?
First off that means that most of the Australian military is not in active combat, secondly those that are are flying fighter planes, meaning that they have probably dropped bombs, and those bombs have probably killed civilians, it is unlikely that large numbers of bombs have been dropped and have not killed any innocents, where are your statistics to the contrary?
1) Do you have trouble reading? What do you think "army commando element" means?
2) That article is dated July 2003. It clearly has Howard saying what forces Australia would keep in the theatre, and this is well after the open conflict.
3) Australian forces involved in combat roles during the Bush-defined period of warfare included SASs, RARs, Hornet pilots, infantry, and field logistics teams.
Secondly, your accusation of the soldiers for cheering after they killed an iraqi, is while not extremely nice, probably more of a natural response to what is actually going on inside of you after you kill somebody.
1) It is not merely my "accusation". Watch the film. They do cheer. Your attempt to portray their actions as something I have skewed into "cheering" is silly, since they actually do cheer.
2) You think killers generally cheer and do some back-slapping with their buddies?
I'm sure you've been in a pressure situation where you've found yourself being threatened, getting into a cheering or screaming emotional high is not necessarily a result of anything gung-ho or wrong about you.
In the most dangerous situation I recall being in, I had a huge adrenaline rush, but did not laugh, scream, or cheer like it was a college football game. Again, this is the difference between real training and thug training. We are not trained to shout "Hooyah!" as a team. Shouting in combat is ridiculous. You're supposed to keep quiet, keep alert, and pay attention to orders. Adrenaline is fine, but acting like a kid on a school trip is not.
Jeez, I was giving Adam the benefit of the doubt in assuming that his description of the disposition of Aussie forces was more or less accurate. According to that, NONE of them are combat forces: ground, air, or otherwise (maybe the naval forces, but there wasn't a whole lot of naval combat besides firing cruise missiles and launching planes). No special forces, no combat aircraft. Heck, our civilian airline pilots are seeing more combat ferrying cargo to Baghdad (several civilian planes have been hit by enemy fire).
1) Do you have trouble reading? What do you think "army commando element" means?
2) That article is dated July 2003. It clearly has Howard saying what forces Australia would keep in the theatre, and this is well after the open conflict.
3) Australian forces involved in combat roles during the Bush-defined period of warfare included SASs, RARs, Hornet pilots, infantry, and field logistics teams.
4) As I have already stated, Australian soldiers were in Baghdad three days before the arrival of US troops.
5) I know you are eager to show that anyone who says anything that might contradict your "America can do no wrong" belief is just being silly, but really, try to pay some measure of attention to what you are reading.
So is this another lie, Adam or do you have a source for your information?
You've just made an Rs of yourself again. Read above.
What if he's standing there shooting at you?
Fire away.
What if he's standing there pointing his gun in the air?
Order him to drop his weapon and surrender.
What if he's injured but still holding his gun, but its not pointed at you?
Order him to drop his weapon and surrender.
What if he's injured, trying to get up and his gun is lying next to him?
Order him to remain still, do not move toward the gun, and surrender.
What if he's lying unconscious with his gun on his chest?
If he appears to be unconscious, approach with several men, guns prepared, from at least three vectors in one non-intersecting arc.
What if he's lying unconscious (or dead) with no gun in sight?
If he appears to be unconscious, approach with several men, guns prepared, from at least three vectors in one non-intersecting arc.
See how easy it is?
In the middle, it can get VERY tough to choose - and your life DOES often depend on the choice you make in a split-second.
This is why real training is a good thing. It is not a tough decision.
Even at the bottom though, there are assumptions that have been made - some you (or the soldier in question) may not even be conscioius of. Adam made some that I let go, but lets discuss some now:
See above responses. Think about it first, then respond.
Does the soldier have a backup weapon?
Unless he's in an officer's uniform, then most likely not. In any case, following procedure as described is the best way to handle it.
We've been operating on the assumption that he does not, but do we really know that? Is that a reasonable assumption?
It is a reasonable assumption, since Iraqi infantry generally can't afford back-up weapons as standard issue.
For your own safety (and the safety of your comrades) you must assume that he does.
For your own safety, you follow procedure.
Does the soldier have any comrades? Ie, is it safe for you to even approach him?
Whether armed, unarmed, alive, dead, wounded, on the ground, standing, or dancing around in a tutu, there may be a sniper half a mile off to the east. There is no way of knowing unless you have spiffy equipment searching the area. However, since a sniper could also have shot that marine while he was up in the back of that vehicle, it makes zero difference, and procedures as outlined above should still be followed.
Now this isn't exactly related to whether or not you should shoot him, but Adam suggested he actually WAS in custody.
He was unarmed, laying down, wounded, under the guns of US soldiers.
From the point of view of the camera in the video, he could have had a comrade within a few feet of him and we might not have been able to see.
Luckily soldiers are not CNN cameramen. Soldiers can scope the area with various sensors, spread out to view the area from several angles, and more.
So it wasn't reasonable to believe it was even POSSIBLE to take him into custody, much less act as if he was already in custody.
If you ignore: 1) the subject's condition; 2) all military training; 3) the actual number of disposition of troops in the situation; 4) international law; 5) the fact that you are trying [i]really[;/i] hard to stretch some amazingly ludicrous fantasies in order to protect your bloeved image of your nation.
That may have just been a way for Adam to try to connect rules from a different situation (treatment of POWs) to this one, but in any case, whether its possible to capture him is relevant to whether or not you can shoot him.
Except for that pesky little international law thing. And training and procedures. And the facts of the situation. And...
How wounded is he? It is virtually impossible to tell from more than 20 feet if someone is dead, unconscious, or just acting.
1) No, it is not virtually impossible to tell. We have funky toys. Heck, the local toy-store has toys sufficient to deal with that.
2) This is why we follow procedure, as outlined above.
Writing in pain is tougher to fake, but still - what exactly do we know about his injuries from watching the tape?
We know the marines had already shot the man. We know that there is such a thing as "training". We know that there is such a thing as "procedure".
And with shock and adrenaline, even severe injuries might not keep someone from fighting.
Was he raging around like a headbanger on speed? No, he was laying down, hardly moving.
Read some medal of honor citations (all are available online) for more about what people can do AFTER being mortally wounded.
See above reply.
The ethics of these assumptions is simple: you are allowed to make whatever reasonable assumptions you need to for your own safety and the safety of your comrades.
And that includes what the Son of Sam considers reasonable? Sorry, but you're really reaching now. You follow procedure. If there is a threat, you deal with it according to your training. There is no need to break the laws of war.
That means you can/DO assume that he has a grenade you can't see.
See, we humans have these nifty things called "eyes". If you are approaching as per the outlines I gave above, and you see the man reach into his pocket, then sure, assume he is trying something. However, if you follow procedure, and the man is merely laying there on the ground, there is no reason to go cowboy.
You DO assume he has comrades that you can't see who are able to help him (and kill you) if you try to approach him.
1) Actually, you must always assume you are in someone's crosshairs anyway, regardless of when or where. It has no bearing on this.
2) See my earlier response about snipers.
3) If the man is seriously injured and in the middle of nowhere, it is more likely a watching sniper will allow the man to be captured so he can receive medical treatment. Believe it or not, not every nation's soldiers execute people like those marines did.
4) You still follow procedure. You don't play cowboy.
You DO assume that he is less injured and more capable of fighting than he appears to be.
And you follow procedure.
It is because of all the things that you don't and maybe can't know that the rules are not that stringent or specific when it comes to evaluating these situations after the fact. You don't ever have the opportunity to capture someone who is naked, alone in the middle of the desert, and has a tranquilizer dart sticking out of his butt to assure he's unconscious. Combat is never that simple.
Thanks ye wise and crusty ol' drill sergeant. That is why we have: 1) training, and 2) procedures.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How wounded is he? It is virtually impossible to tell from more than 20 feet if someone is dead, unconscious, or just acting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) No, it is not virtually impossible to tell. We have funky toys. Heck, the local toy-store has toys sufficient to deal with that.
Really? I'd love to hear about them. You see, research and design into such things is how I've made my living for the last 20 years. I have extensive experience in battlefield sensors, sensor integration, battlefield digitization, remote personal metal detection and so on. I know that we're having enough difficulty just getting devices that would discern the information you describe at point blank range from cooperative subjects. So, in the Australian toy stores you have devices that can take ranged blood pressure measurements to determine if a person is in shock? Because if he's moving, and not in shock, he can very easily kill you.
Njorl
I don't see why you find this so difficult. Australia's ratio is infinitely superior, literally.
Well, it's kind of hard to have 0.136 suicides to maintain that equal ratio now, isn't it?
No, it's not. I did point out that you used an annual figure. The figures for US troops in Iraq is not an annual figure; it's for about six months.
Ok. If it's for 6 months, then the suicide rate is STILL less than that of Finland.
In simple terms: It seems you think a certain number of civilian deaths, mental problems, ancient relics destroyed, et cetera, is all an acceptable price to pay for your beliefs.
What leads you to that conclusion? What are my beliefs, anyways?
It seems you totally missed my point; for instance, the number of suicides and mental health problems are on par or less than the average... so there is zero price in this respect.
Really? I'd love to hear about them.
Ever heard of microphones?
I know that we're having enough difficulty just getting devices that would discern the information you describe at point blank range from cooperative subjects.
Allow me to doubt your experience in the field then. A pair of microphones is used to find snipers from several hundred yards. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/CuttingEdge/cuttingedge021018.html These are actually available on the open market.
So, in the Australian toy stores you have devices that can take ranged blood pressure measurements to determine if a person is in shock?
Unecessary. Listen to his movements. Use your eyes. Just like people have been doing for thousands of years. And with a microphone, it's much easier.
I was extending it to the man in the video, who was certainly not dead or unconcious. The question was "How wounded is he?"
If he is in shock, he almost certainly can not fight back. If he is not in shock, he almost certainly can fight back.
Microphones will not determine this.
Njorl
Well, it's kind of hard to have 0.136 suicides to maintain that equal ratio now, isn't it?
Pay attention. The Australian ratio is a divide by zero. Therefore an infinitely superior ratio.
Ok. If it's for 6 months, then the suicide rate is STILL less than that of Finland.
US military in Iraq: 10 per 150,000 in approximately six months, evacuated for mental health reasons; and a further 17, at least, have committed suicide. That's 27.
Finland: 21.5 per 100,000 suicides in approximately in a year. That is just over 10 in six months. Add fifty per cent (to equal the 150,000): 15.
This is the comparison you made. Suicides in Finland against mental health of US soldiers in Iraq. Final score: Finland 15, USA military 27.
What leads you to that conclusion? What are my beliefs, anyways?
In your own words:
36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.
It seems you totally missed my point; for instance, the number of suicides and mental health problems are on par or less than the average...
No, they aren't.
Originally posted by Njorl
Microphones will not determine this.
Luckily we have that nifty thing I have mentioned several times: TRAINING! You follow procedures.
Microphones will determine whether the guy is moving, and will quite easily pick up the sounds of a gun being cocked, perhaps even scraped on the ground. However, although this capability exists, it is not really necessary if the soldiers follow simple procedures.
Pay attention.
You pay attention. This particular statistic is meaningless. Allow me to demonstrate:
We're both flipping coins trying to get heads.
You flip a coin 1000 times and get, say, 510 heads, so you failed 49% of the time.
I flip a coin once and get one head, so I failed 0% of the time.
My failure rate is infinitely better than your failure rate, but that tells us virtually nothing about how our coins compare.
Finland: 21.5 per 100,000
24.3, not 21.5. (at least from the site I linked)
According to http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/papers/fincover/finpart14.htm , the rate was 43.6 per 100,000 over 1994.
Suicides in Finland against mental health of US soldiers in Iraq...
Er, do I have to point out your mistake here?
In your own words:
quote:
36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.
Care to spell out again just what you're implying?
You pay attention. This particular statistic is meaningless.
Hey, don't blame me. You are the one who drew the comparison in the first place.
My failure rate is infinitely better than your failure rate, but that tells us virtually nothing about how our coins compare.
That's ok. Check out previous conflicts as well.
24.3, not 21.5. (at least from the site I linked)
Still lower than 27.
According to http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/papers/fincover/finpart14.htm , the rate was 43.6 per 100,000 over 1994.
I would be surprised, but if so, that's quite horrendous.
Er, do I have to point out your mistake here?
Once again, it is the comparison you made.
Care to spell out again just what you're implying?
I don't imply anything. I repeat your very own words. You said it is a great ratio.
Hey, don't blame me. You are the one who drew the comparison in the first place.
You may recall you're the first one who tried to prove a point using these figures.
Still lower than 27.
I seem to remember 27 being something other than a suicide rate figure...
would be surprised, but if so, that's quite horrendous.
Much worse than 23 per year per 100,000.
I don't imply anything.
I figured you quoted it for a reason; my mistake for assuming there was a point.
Anyways, I would still like to know what my beliefs are, according to you.
Mattius_
Dec17-03, 06:20 PM
Ok Adam, since you are the only person in here that cannot understand simple logic, im going to explain it to you REALLY SLOWLY.
1700 US Desertions= 1.1%
Unnamed austrialian desertions = ?%(you didnt say if any Austrialians deserted. But according to you, the only forces in Iraq from Australia are well trained cool headed technicians (EX, Pilots, Special Ops) which wouldnt really fit the category of a typical deserter.
Im not sure what qualifys as a desertion in the US, but I am confident that 1.1% of our armed forces in Iraq didn't run the other direction once a firefight started.
17 US suicides= .013%
0 Australian suicides= 0%
Its kind of hard for people to be pushed to suicide when they are MOVING BOXES , but just for fun, lets say Australia, today, has a suicide. With just 1 suicide, the percentages bolt and the Australian armed forces have .083% rate of suicide!!!! OH MY GOD, ALMOST ONE OUT OF EVERY 1000 AUSTRALIANS COMMIT SUICIDE!!!THATS LIKE OVER 5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE UNITED STATES!!! OH MY GOD, AUSTRALIANS ARE SUICIDAL MANIACS.
10 US Mental Health Problems= .006%
0 Australian Mental Health Problems= 0%
Again, its hard to have a mental health problem when moving boxes, but if just 1 Australian had a mental health problem, that would make for, oh my!, thats insane!, your kidding! a .083% rate of mental disfunction!!!!!!! Almost 1 out of every 1000 Aussies are CRAZY! Thats HUGE! Thats 14 times greater than the Unites States rate!!! GEEZ, YOU AUSSIES ARE A BUNCH OF LOONIES!
Are you starting to see the power of statistics? I really hope so!
Now, as for 10% friendly fire casualties, That means we have killed 45 of our own men during this conflict.
Last time I checked, taking a hostile nation which to a large degree resents its invaders and only losing 45 men to friendly fire is an unprecedented number. No other time in history has one nation taken over another with only 45 friendly fire casualties.
The same goes for the total 450 lossed. Unprecedented, by far.
Now, if you will please Adam, Sit down, Say your sorry, Shutup, and LISTEN FOR ONCE to people who are less vunreable to wrong information.
russ_watters
Dec17-03, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I seem to remember 27 being something other than a suicide rate figure... Oh, man thats rich. Now I'm not sure what to think. You picked up an apple, he showed you an orange and said they're the same thing. I'm not sure how much simpler it can get though. That can't be blamed on not understanding statistical analysis.
1700 US Desertions= 1.1%
Unnamed austrialian desertions = ?%(you didnt say if any Austrialians deserted. But according to you, the only forces in Iraq from Australia are well trained cool headed technicians (EX, Pilots, Special Ops) which wouldnt really fit the category of a typical deserter.
There were zero Australian deserters. Many people consider the standard Australian soldier equivalent to any other nation's special forces. Why? Consider this comparison: the USA uses 1.3 million people to defend 9.5 milion square kilometres; Australia uses about 55,000 people to defend 7.5 milion square kilometres. USMC training is 11 weeks, plus 1 week of parades and other such fanfare. My training was 9 months. And if you'll read the essays by Brian Ross which I linked to earlier, you will find good descriptions of the differences in military philosophy between the two nations. One relies on massive numbers and firepower. The other relies on exceptional training, stealth, and walking very quietly while carrying a very big stick. Regardless, the fact remains that Australia suffered zero desertions during that campaign.
Im not sure what qualifys as a desertion in the US, but I am confident that 1.1% of our armed forces in Iraq didn't run the other direction once a firefight started.
From the UCMJ:
ART. 85. DESERTION
(a) Any member of the armed forces who--
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;
is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
17 US suicides= .013%
0 Australian suicides= 0%
Its kind of hard for people to be pushed to suicide when they are MOVING BOXES , but just for fun, lets say Australia, today, has a suicide. With just 1 suicide, the percentages bolt and the Australian armed forces have .083% rate of suicide!!!! OH MY GOD, ALMOST ONE OUT OF EVERY 1000 AUSTRALIANS COMMIT SUICIDE!!!THATS LIKE OVER 5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE UNITED STATES!!! OH MY GOD, AUSTRALIANS ARE SUICIDAL MANIACS.
1) However, in reality, there were zero.
2) Please read my response to that person who had no idea about what Australian forces did in the conflict.
10 US Mental Health Problems= .006%
0 Australian Mental Health Problems= 0%
Again, its hard to have a mental health problem when moving boxes, but if just 1 Australian had a mental health problem, that would make for, oh my!, thats insane!, your kidding! a .083% rate of mental disfunction!!!!!!! Almost 1 out of every 1000 Aussies are CRAZY! Thats HUGE! Thats 14 times greater than the Unites States rate!!! GEEZ, YOU AUSSIES ARE A BUNCH OF LOONIES!
1) However, in reality, there were zero.
2) Please read my response to that person who had no idea about what Australian forces did in the conflict.
Are you starting to see the power of statistics? I really hope so!
1) Are you seeing the power of actually reading what Australians did there, and what the actual numbers were?
Now, as for 10% friendly fire casualties, That means we have killed 45 of our own men during this conflict.
Luckily that is down from the 15% to 20% in WW2, so at least they are improving. Also, that does not take into account the British and other friendlies killed by American soldiers.
Last time I checked, taking a hostile nation which to a large degree resents its invaders and only losing 45 men to friendly fire is an unprecedented number.
1) Hasn't the US administration been saying Iraq is not a hostile nation? That the locals want the invasion?
2) No, it is not unprecedented at all.
No other time in history has one nation taken over another with only 45 friendly fire casualties.
Australia's takeover of the Solomon Islands. England's takeover of Australia. The Viking invasions of Lindesfarne, Iceland, Greenland... Sorry, but your knowledge of world history is simply not up to the task of supporting such whacky statements.
The same goes for the total 450 lossed. Unprecedented, by far.
Once again, your knowledge of history is insufficient for making such ridiculous statements. There were 8 deaths at the Battle of Lexington. In the Spanish-American war, fewer than 400 American combat deaths. During Desert Storm, 148. Operation Enduring Freedom (nice slogan), Afghanistan, 84. Operation Enduring Freedom, Philippines, 0.
Now, if you will please Adam, Sit down, Say your sorry, Shutup, and LISTEN FOR ONCE to people who are less vunreable to wrong information.
Now, if you will please Mattius, sit down, say you're sorry, read the facts, absorb the information presented, and think before you type.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Oh, man thats rich. Now I'm not sure what to think. You picked up an apple, he showed you an orange and said they're the same thing. I'm not sure how much simpler it can get though. That can't be blamed on not understanding statistical analysis.
Follow the bouncing ball:
1) I mentioned the number of mental health evacuations for US personnel during the campaign.
2) Someone else mentioned the number of suicides in Finland, comparing the two figures.
3) The figures were erroneously compared by people who can't count.
4) I provided an accurate comparison, that being:
US military in Iraq: 10 per 150,000 in approximately six months, evacuated for mental health reasons; and a further 17, at least, have committed suicide. That's 27.
Finland: 21.5 per 100,000 suicides in approximately in a year. That is just over 10 in six months. Add fifty per cent (to equal the 150,000): 15.
This is the comparison you made. Suicides in Finland against mental health of US soldiers in Iraq. Final score: Finland 15, USA military 27.
Get your facts straight before you complain, russ. Someone else introduced the comparison.
Lyuokdea
Dec18-03, 08:31 PM
First off, Adam, how can you spend such a long amount of time expaining how to compare statistics and compare them so incorrectly, first off, you are comparing Finland Suicides against U.S. Army suicides and mental health evacuations, of course this is wrong, if you want to make an actual comparrison you would simply compare U.S. suicides against Finnish suicides, and the number would be 17 to 15.
Secondly, you aren't even using the right numbers, to quote Hurkyll the first person to bring the statistic forward
How should I interpret those other figures? According to http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html , per year, 36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide
by the way that is the fourth post down on page 4. we now have a score of 18 to 17 and the U.S. is winning.
Lastly, that means that the suicide rate between soldiers suffering PTSD and fighting in a war zone is comparible, really statistically unsignificantly lower than the suicide rate of people hanging out in Finland. That means that the U.S. is doing an amazing job. Remember not only are people under much more stress fighting in Iraq, they also have the weapons disposable to commit suicide all of the time. The statistics don't lie, only your misuse of the figures involved does.
Lyuokdea
Dec18-03, 09:06 PM
1) However, in reality, there were zero.
2) Please read my response to that person who had no idea about what Australian forces did in the conflict.
This doesn't answer the statistical methods which Mattius_ is bringing up. if Australians were equally likely to U.S. forces to commit suicide, and that number was the current .013%, then no australians should have committed suicide yet, to divide people, 1/5 of an australian should have committed suicide, but since non-integer suicide rates are impossible, the event should not have happened.
Secondly 1200 people is not enough to measure a probability that has a close to .013% chance of occurring. The focus group is simply not large enough to gain any actual information from a group that small, any information you do get would be statistically unsignificant, and would be too random to draw any real conclusions from. Here is an analogy, lets say I wanted to test to see if AIDS exists, I test 20 people, now according to http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2000/AF001170.html, the number of people with AIDS is 36.1 million, meaning that out of 6 billion people, a person has a .6% chance of having AIDS. Now I test my 20 people, according to probability 88.65% of the time (.994^20) I will find nobody with AIDS and therefore conclude that AIDS does not exist. But this is not a good sample because it is simply not large enough to prove the existence or not of an unlikely event. To get to a commonly accepted statistically significant result, I would have to test enough people that the result would not happen 95% of the time, to do this in the case of aids, i would have to test about 500 people and find nobody positive, that only has a likelyhood of 4.93%.
With suicides in Iraq even more people are needed, because there is only a .00013 percent chance that somebody commits suicide. If I take a group of 1200 people then 85.55% of the time (.99987^1200) I will find that nobody commits suicide. To find a statistically significant difference, you would have to examine a group of about 23000 people (.99987^23000 = 5.027%) to get any reliable information of whether Australians are less likely or not to commit suicide. Again, the numbers and statistics are right there in front of you.
schwarzchildradius
Dec18-03, 09:32 PM
That IS a creepy tape, and from what I've read it's just the tip of the iceberg. Everybody get ready for a wave of serial killers when some of these guys get back. Even if that Iraqi was setting up an IED and the marine was justified in shooting him, the sheer joy he expressed at the end is sinister as hell.
russ_watters
Dec19-03, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Adam
USMC training is 11 weeks, plus 1 week of parades and other such fanfare. My training was 9 months. Of course you know this is false. Well- I can't speak for the Australian military, but in every other military I've ever heard of, your training ends the day you are discharged. Those first 12 weeks are called "basic" training for a reason - they indoctrinate you into the military, but they are NOT what makes you an effective soldier (/sailor/marine/airman).One relies on massive numbers and firepower. The other relies on exceptional training, stealth, and walking very quietly while carrying a very big stick. Of course you know this is also false. The US model of technology and tactics in leu of numbers is the model that the rest of the world follows (those who can anyway). And our performance speaks for itself - never before 1991 has such a large conflict been fought with so few casualties. The fact that statistically a soldier was safer in theater than at home on leave in 1991 is mind boggling.
Other western countries have drawn down their militaries becasue they know they don't need them except as a token show of strength. They know that the US will come to the aid of any western country that needs it - an idea they got from Japan after WWII.
The one service that the US has any advantage at all in size over our major enemies is the Navy. And the reason for that is it is used so much. The Army and Marine Corps are smaller (relatively speaking) because they aren't used as often. They for the most part just sit at home and train their whole careers - which presents a bit of a problem though when it comes to dealing with an Iraq type situation.
Now this is just starting to sound like jealousy/resentment. I spent some time with service members from other countries and they were great people, but it always seemed like they were upset about the fact that they didn't really defend their countries. It is a wonderful thing though that the US has created a world in which most countries don't need militaries.
You know there are exchange programs you can join? You won't really be a member of the US military, but you can pretend for a while. That IS a creepy tape, and from what I've read it's just the tip of the iceberg. Everybody get ready for a wave of serial killers when some of these guys get back. There were a handful (2 or 3) of wives killed at an army base when the first of the soldiers rotated back to the US. I haven't heard of any since then, and by now virtually everyone has been back at least on leave.
Soldiers don't become serial killers, they become passion/impulse killers. One of the issues there is that there is no easy way to decompress when leaving combat. Even taking a few days for counseling wouldn't help - thats just a few more days to think about not being at home.
schwarzchildradius
Dec19-03, 12:49 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald - United States Marine Corps
Excellent shootist by any standard
steersman
Dec19-03, 04:41 AM
You all need to watch the tape again. The man was out in the open, barely moving and facing in the opposite direction to his weapon. Granted, he could have given some sign of surrender (if he was game), such as raising his hands - that didn't happen, so all the more reason for the marines to shout orders at him, language barrier aside it may have elicited the correct response. Instead three (considered) shots were fired. It was completely unnecessary.
First off, Adam, how can you spend such a long amount of time expaining how to compare statistics and compare them so incorrectly, first off, you are comparing Finland Suicides against U.S. Army suicides and mental health evacuations, of course this is wrong, if you want to make an actual comparrison you would simply compare U.S. suicides against Finnish suicides, and the number would be 17 to 15.
Are you insane? Blind? What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Once again, and hopefully for the last time (please pay attention here), the comparison was introduced BY SOMEONE ELSE!
Secondly, you aren't even using the right numbers, to quote Hurkyll the first person to bring the statistic forward
I'm using the numbers introduced by the person who introduced the comparison.
by the way that is the fourth post down on page 4. we now have a score of 18 to 17 and the U.S. is winning.
Eighteen suicides now? Wow. I'm glad you're impressed.
Lastly, that means that the suicide rate between soldiers suffering PTSD and fighting in a war zone is comparible, really statistically unsignificantly lower than the suicide rate of people hanging out in Finland. That means that the U.S. is doing an amazing job. Remember not only are people under much more stress fighting in Iraq, they also have the weapons disposable to commit suicide all of the time. The statistics don't lie, only your misuse of the figures involved does.
The comparison introduced by someone else was mental health problems among US troops during this campaign again suicides in Finland.
Now, using the comparison introduced by someone else, that means:
USA mental health evacuations and suicides: 27 (in about 6 months, and for about 150,000 people). That's 18 per 100,000 people per six months, or 36 in a year.
Suicides in Finland: 26.4, per 100,000 people, for one year. http://www.mcdl.org/Stats/gnpsuicide.htm
Once again, using the comparison introduced by someone else: USA military has 36, Finland has 26.4.
Naturally the nuffer who introduced the comparison was trying desperately to prove a point,a nd thus chose the European nation with the highest suicide rate he could find. And it still ends up well below the rate seen in the US military, given the comparison that chap made.
Originally posted by Lyuokdea
This doesn't answer the statistical methods which Mattius_ is bringing up. if Australians were equally likely to U.S. forces to commit suicide, and that number was the current .013%, then no australians should have committed suicide yet, to divide people, 1/5 of an australian should have committed suicide, but since non-integer suicide rates are impossible, the event should not have happened.
Secondly 1200 people is not enough to measure a probability that has a close to .013% chance of occurring. The focus group is simply not large enough to gain any actual information from a group that small, any information you do get would be statistically unsignificant, and would be too random to draw any real conclusions from. Here is an analogy, lets say I wanted to test to see if AIDS exists, I test 20 people, now according to http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2000/AF001170.html, the number of people with AIDS is 36.1 million, meaning that out of 6 billion people, a person has a .6% chance of having AIDS. Now I test my 20 people, according to probability 88.65% of the time (.994^20) I will find nobody with AIDS and therefore conclude that AIDS does not exist. But this is not a good sample because it is simply not large enough to prove the existence or not of an unlikely event. To get to a commonly accepted statistically significant result, I would have to test enough people that the result would not happen 95% of the time, to do this in the case of aids, i would have to test about 500 people and find nobody positive, that only has a likelyhood of 4.93%.
With suicides in Iraq even more people are needed, because there is only a .00013 percent chance that somebody commits suicide. If I take a group of 1200 people then 85.55% of the time (.99987^1200) I will find that nobody commits suicide. To find a statistically significant difference, you would have to examine a group of about 23000 people (.99987^23000 = 5.027%) to get any reliable information of whether Australians are less likely or not to commit suicide. Again, the numbers and statistics are right there in front of you.
For the curious, here are some numbers regarding Australians at war:
Served in WW1: 747,000.
Total casualties: 60,000.
Served in WW2: 990,900.
Total casualties: 35,000.
Served in Korea: 15,164.
Total casualties: 339.
Served in Vietnam: 59,000.
Total casualties: 424.
Suicides among AU Vietnam veterans from 1976 to 1996: 240.
Interesting that the US Veterans' Administration claims that "three times more Vietnam veterans have died from suicide after the war than died from enemy action during the war" according to http://www.killology.com/art_psych_price.htm.
Out of 424 US troops killed in Iraq this time around, 130 are classified as "non-hostile", 103 of them since Bushy declared hostilities over. 13 more have no cause of detah listed.
Within the USA, suicide rates of the children of Vietnam veterans is three times higher than for non-veterans. This is a rather strong indication that there is something wrong with how US personnel handle war.
Originally posted by Adam
Within the USA, suicide rates of the children of Vietnam veterans is three times higher than for non-veterans. This is a rather strong indication that there is something wrong with how US personnel handle war.
Funny little thing that you should mention this issue. I came across the following quote, which would seem to re-inforce what you've said:
Well that's exactly right, and there's been a series of studies on Vietnam veterans showing that you have significant health problems as compared to the general population and the latest study has shown that children of Vietnam veterans have got a higher suicide rate, three times higher suicide than the general population; suffer from a higher rate of spina bifida, suffer from a higher rate of just accidents generally than the children of the general population and there's other areas as well but the government has not acted on this report and we're very disappointed in it.
Only one problem, it's in regards to vietnam veterans children...in Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s109939.htm So..by your standard it would seem to indicate there is somethign wrong with how Australian personnel handle war.[g)] Give me a break!
Of course you know this is false. Well- I can't speak for the Australian military, but in every other military I've ever heard of, your training ends the day you are discharged.
Okay, the bit they call "training". US marines: 11 weeks. Me: 9 months. Deal with it.
Of course you know this is also false. The US model of technology and tactics in leu of numbers is the model that the rest of the world follows (those who can anyway).
You are dreaming. Many nations have superior manpower to the USA, advanced technology, yet follow vastly different military idealogies. This amazing arrogance, thinking "Our military is the best, everyone wants to be like us", is what leads to 130 deaths from friendly fire, incidents like Blackhawk Down, and more. Let's look at a comparison:
USA
Personnel: 1.3 million.
Reserves: 1.3 million.
8,100 MBTs.
151 Naval vessels.
CHINA
Personnel: 2.48 million.
Reserves: 1.2 million.
8,300 MBTs.
2,000 LBTs.
790 Naval vessels.
Now the USA method has for a long time been to "take the fight to the enemy", to perform military actions away from the home soil. Better to fight them "over there" than "over here", thus keeping the USA itself unharmed and the people less disillusioned. With the massive growth of air power and cruise missiles and such, the USA has come to the method of absolute air dominion, ultimately resulting in the "Shock & Awe" doctrine (http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html) which saw something like 800 cruise missiles fall on the civilian city of Baghdad over a period of about two days. The method works. It blows a lot of things up. It is also expensive. The USA uses carrier groups and amssive air power to project military force around the world; it has the world's largest mobile arsenal.
China, on the other hand, with superior numbers and some of the world's most advanced hardware (the ZM-87, for example), chooses to ignore the rest of the world, refrain from extending their force beyond their borders, and build up a massive force perfectly suited to defending their country.
Let's consider, which advanced military forces follow the USA military philosophy? Canada? No. China? No. Australia? No. Enland? No. France? No. Spain? No. Germany? No. So... who does?
And our performance speaks for itself - never before 1991 has such a large conflict been fought with so few casualties. The fact that statistically a soldier was safer in theater than at home on leave in 1991 is mind boggling.
Incorrect. Please read the list of past conflicts which I provided earlier.
Other western countries have drawn down their militaries becasue they know they don't need them except as a token show of strength. They know that the US will come to the aid of any western country that needs it - an idea they got from Japan after WWII.
Could it be that the rest of us simply aren't so eager for war?
The one service that the US has any advantage at all in size over our major enemies is the Navy. And the reason for that is it is used so much.
Indeed. The reason why, I explained earlier in this post.
The Army and Marine Corps are smaller (relatively speaking) because they aren't used as often. They for the most part just sit at home and train their whole careers - which presents a bit of a problem though when it comes to dealing with an Iraq type situation.
Incorrect. The USA currently has around 320,000 soldiers in other countries. Mainly army and marines.
... but it always seemed like they were upset about the fact that they didn't really defend their countries.
Don't get all hostile with other states, and you don't have to defend your nation.
It is a wonderful thing though that the US has created a world in which most countries don't need militaries.
1) Yet every nation has a military.
2) The USA created the world??? Dude, what are you smoking???
You know there are exchange programs you can join? You won't really be a member of the US military, but you can pretend for a while.
I have worked with the military forces of several nations, and the only one I ever considered worthwhile for an exchange programme was England.
There were a handful (2 or 3) of wives killed at an army base when the first of the soldiers rotated back to the US. I haven't heard of any since then, and by now virtually everyone has been back at least on leave.
I've not heard anything either, on the matter of soldiers returning home and killing spouses. I'd be interested to learn if there have been more.
Soldiers don't become serial killers, they become passion/impulse killers.
Off topic, more a question of ethics. Why is a soldier on tour not considered a serial killer, if he or she kills a lot of people?
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Lee Harvey Oswald - United States Marine Corps
Excellent shootist by any standard
Sucker. Jimmy Hoffa was the shooter.
Only one problem, it's in regards to vietnam veterans children...[B]in Australia.
Yep, our Vietnam vets are totally screwed up too. Agent Orange is one of the worst chemical warfare episodes in history. Vietnam veterans had less support than any other group of veterans.
But Kat, do you want to know something interesting? The Australian figure is still lower than the USA figure.
Originally posted by Adam
Yep, our Vietnam vets are totally screwed up too. Agent Orange is one of the worst chemical warfare episodes in history. Vietnam veterans had less support than any other group of veterans.
But Kat, do you want to know something interesting? The Australian figure is still lower than the USA figure.
There's only one problem with introducing suicide rates in this thread. According to your own Australian dept. of Phsychiatry their study of Vietnam suicide rates showed that......well let me quote the study: Department of Psychiatry, University of Queensland, Australia.
The cohort of all Australian former army conscripts of the Vietnam conflict ea was followed from 1965 to 1982 to determine mortality rates and causes of death following completion of their National Service. Suiciders were compared with a random sample of survivors using information contained in their military documents in a nested case-control study. Their military document information was recorded before men were selected for Vietnam service and is uncontaminated by "recall bias." Suicide victims had lower mean scores on the army general intelligence and mechanical comprehension tests, were less likely to have continued education beyond high school, were less likely to be employed in white-collar or skilled blue-collar jobs between leaving school and being drafted, and more likely to have volunteered for the draft. They were more likely to have committed a civilian offense before joining the army, more likely to have gone absent without leave (AWOL), and more likely to have committed other offenses during military service. Suiciders were more likely to have a history of diagnosis and treatment for psychological disorder during service and to be judged to be less than emotionally stable at discharge. Service in Vietnam was not associated with suicide. A log-linear regression model was used to analyze death rates associated with five types of variables: cognitive abilities, education, preservice employment, conduct while in service, and physical and mental health. This analysis produced a model containing only four variables: intelligence test score, postschool education, AWOL charge during service, and history of diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems. The difference in death rates between high scorers on these items and low scorers was 46-fold, from 5.2 to 240.9 per 10,000 person-years.
The indicators you're using to show inferior training and supposedly inferior tactics are far more relative to inferior recruiting then any other factor you've put forth so far.
Are you insane? Blind? What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Once again, and hopefully for the last time (please pay attention here), the comparison was introduced BY SOMEONE ELSE!
You should go back and read it again.
The indicators you're using to show inferior training and supposedly inferior tactics are far more relative to inferior recruiting then any other factor you've put forth so far.
What in any of that has any reference to training and tactics?
What you've discovered in your amazingly adept and new research is something everyone else has known for a long time: suicide is higher among those of lower education, the unemployed, et cetera.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You should go back and read it again.
Once again, the evidence:
1) First mention of mental health evacuations was me. I used the sentence: "Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons."
2) HURKYL introduced the comparison to suicides in Finland, the developed country with the highest suicide rate, as his example of "normal" suicide rates, with this: "How should I interpret those other figures? According to http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html , per year, 36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me."
This is all on page 4 of this thread.
There you go, Hurkyl. Demonstrated once again. Read more carefully, Mister Pot.
And yet, as the evidence clearly shows, I was not comparing mental health problems to suicides, contrary to what you've been claiming.
Originally posted by Adam
Once again, the evidence:
1) First mention of mental health evacuations was me. I used the sentence: "Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons."
2) HURKYL introduced the comparison to suicides in Finland, the developed country with the highest suicide rate, as his example of "normal" suicide rates, with this: "How should I interpret those other figures? According to http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html , per year, 36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me."
This is all on page 4 of this thread.
There you go, Hurkyl. Demonstrated once again. Read more carefully, Mister Pot.
Once again, as is clear for anyone to see, you provided your comparison (highlighted in red now) as a response to my figures (blue). You quoted my paragraph, then made a comparison against the nation with the highest suicide rate and tried to claim it was normal. Try to cover it up now if you wish. Or you could simply admit that you made a bollocks comparison then refused to accept the reality that even that bollocks comparison showed a high rate of mental problems among US troops.
And yet, you still don't provide any evidence of your assertion that
The comparison introduced by someone else was mental health problems among US troops during this campaign again suicides in Finland.
Lyuokdea
Dec19-03, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Adam
Once again, as is clear for anyone to see, you provided your comparison (highlighted in red now) as a response to my figures (blue). You quoted my paragraph, then made a comparison against the nation with the highest suicide rate and tried to claim it was normal. Try to cover it up now if you wish. Or you could simply admit that you made a bollocks comparison then refused to accept the reality that even that bollocks comparison showed a high rate of mental problems among US troops.
And, you still have not answered my analysis of why it was statistically irrelevent. And you again lie when you say that the data said that it was higher than the rate of troop suicides, 18 suicides per 6 months per 150,000 students in Finland, vs. 17 per 6 months, per 150,000 in the U.S. again although Statistically irrelevent the statistics were similar.
And, you have also forgotten to answer the analysis that higher suicide rates are expected in battle and given the elements faced, the rate is quite low.
phatmonky
Jan1-04, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by steersman
You all need to watch the tape again. The man was out in the open, barely moving and facing in the opposite direction to his weapon. Granted, he could have given some sign of surrender (if he was game), such as raising his hands - that didn't happen, so all the more reason for the marines to shout orders at him, language barrier aside it may have elicited the correct response. Instead three (considered) shots were fired. It was completely unnecessary.
I found the editing of the footage to be unnecessary. I haven't read this whole thread, so if someone else mentioned, sorry for rehashing....But, clipping the interview for their own usage is pretty lame.
Edit - anyone else find it funny that the top of the page syas "news you won't find on CNN" and is hosting footage from CNN???
The_Professional
Jan1-04, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by phatmonky
Edit - anyone else find it funny that the top of the page syas "news you won't find on CNN" and is hosting footage from CNN???
Thought the same thing myself, pretty ironic
The footage was bought by, and is owned by, CNN. Whether CNN aired that footage is a different matter.
The_Professional
Jan1-04, 08:03 PM
I'd rather see the original, unedited footage
phatmonky
Jan1-04, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Adam
The footage was bought by, and is owned by, CNN. Whether CNN aired that footage is a different matter.
It was still "found on CNN"
[zz)]
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.