News The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[Huckleberry]

No, if you use the OP logic alone "everyone who joins these forces wants to kill" then nobody would be traumatised. However this is clearly not the case. But that still doesn't mean most people become traumatised. I think in these situations, the cop would see it as doing their job and therefore, unless they felt they did something wrong (made a bad call) then they wouldn't be affected.

Have personal experience with this? Spoken with many vets lately? Talk to cops much? Done any research? Where does the belief that people who kill another human in understandable circumstances feel no guilt come from?

All of the people I knew that have killed another human express some type of regret (not always consistently) and emotional stress. At least one was seriously traumatized afterwards. He still needs antipsychotic drugs to prevent night terrors caused by his experience in the Vietnam war.

From my anecdotal experience I would say that being predisposed to killing is not a natural condition. It's psychotic. I don't believe it to be uncommon that they suffer some psychological damage even if their actions are justified by law and/or conscience. It directly affects their ability to cope in society. Killing another human being is not something to be taken lightly if one wants to exist in a society where murder and brutality are wrong.

 

[Al68]

Killing is always bad. It's just sometimes the lesser of evils.

If you killed someone, even in self defence or war, it would still haunt you the rest of your life.

I would say if someone was haunted by guilt because he killed someone, there is reason for it, such as he knows deep down it wasn't "really" self defense, for example. If they believe they did nothing wrong they would feel no guilt.

Unless by "haunted", you mean by something other than guilt, like any crime victim might be haunted by the memory.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would say if someone was haunted by guilt because he killed someone, there is reason for it, such as he knows deep down it wasn't "really" self defense, for example. If they believe they did nothing wrong they would feel no guilt.

Unless by "haunted", you mean by something other than guilt, like any crime victim might be haunted by the memory.

http://www.calea.org/Online/newsletter/No87/ptsd.htm
Unfortunately this does not give any specific information about incidents of PTSD connected to shootings.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5607q4h6p23012m/
This is just an abstract, it does deal specifically with shootings, unfortunately it does not specify officers shooting a suspect only officers involved in shooting incidents in general.


The problem you see is that they second guess themselves. They begin to wonder whether or not they really needed to shoot the person or if there was something else they could have done. This often happens regardless of how by the book they did their job or how many people tell them they did the right thing and had no other choice. You will find this sort of phenomena in just about any field of work that involves life and death decisions. Doctors, EMTs, soldiers, firefighters, ect..

 

[Moridin]

We can simplify this:

Murder = bad
Killing = depends on situation/context

But this is just a definitional, rather than contextualized argument, since murder is merely defined as "unjustified killing". To state that murder is morally wrong is merely to state that unjustified killing is unjustified? Perhaps we should think about it like (Killing (Murder) )?

 

[Al68]

http://www.calea.org/Online/newsletter/No87/ptsd.htm
Unfortunately this does not give any specific information about incidents of PTSD connected to shootings.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5607q4h6p23012m/
This is just an abstract, it does deal specifically with shootings, unfortunately it does not specify officers shooting a suspect only officers involved in shooting incidents in general.


The problem you see is that they second guess themselves. They begin to wonder whether or not they really needed to shoot the person or if there was something else they could have done. This often happens regardless of how by the book they did their job or how many people tell them they did the right thing and had no other choice. You will find this sort of phenomena in just about any field of work that involves life and death decisions. Doctors, EMTs, soldiers, firefighters, ect..

Sure, that was really my point. The feelings of guilt are due to at least the possibility that it wasn't justified self defense. They're not due to the person thinking that killing in self defense is immoral. If a police officer thinks self defense is immoral, what's the gun for?

Of course killing by accident is different, too, like in the case of doctors, etc. But that would be more analogous to a police officer accidentally killing a bystander. I don't think the OP was referring to accidental killings, but of course someone would feel guilty about accidentally killing someone.

 

[kyleb]

I am sure the OP was referring to what is commonly euphemised as "collateral damage", which isn't rightly self-defense and only sometimes attributable to accident.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure, that was really my point. The feelings of guilt are due to at least the possibility that it wasn't justified self defense.

Its certainly debatable but I believe the common theory is that the second guessing stems from shock at having taken a life not necessarily the circumstances.

 

[JaredJames]

Well you can't really compare a cop to a soldier. A cop has strict regulations when it comes to pulling and using his gun (a soldier too but no one is there to keep them strict). If a cop shoots someone, it usually has to be because they have pulled a gun and generally won't submit to the cop or even shot at him. They really do need justification to pull that trigger. In Britain, the cop needs a direct order from HQ before they can even consider pulling the trigger. If they shoot someone wrongly they can be sued and go to prison.
In a war, when people are shooting then PTSD does become a much bigger issue, soldiers get fired on, they fire back. If there are civilians within the firing line they were unaware of (given firefights generally are over medium range with .50 cal machine guns and grenade launchers or within urban areas), they cannot always guarantee the person they shoot is a combatant (possible friendly fire), there is always a doubt in their mind the person they shot was innocent. And without proof they were not, that doubt can become an issue.

 

[drizzlekizzle]

do you think any of those troops want to be there? think they enlisted to go kill foreigners? they enlisted to make something of themselves and serve their country, fighting for it if necessary. the taliban and al-qaeda in afghanistan attacked us so its obvious there's going to be troops there fighting them. iraq is a whole different story, they shouldn't even been there in the first place.

 

[mohd_adam]

do you think any of those troops want to be there? think they enlisted to go kill foreigners? they enlisted to make something of themselves and serve their country, fighting for it if necessary. the taliban and al-qaeda in afghanistan attacked us so its obvious there's going to be troops there fighting them. iraq is a whole different story, they shouldn't even been there in the first place.

No, Taliban didn't attack America. Al-qaeda only who atacked America. bin Laden' deceived Mullah Omar, by undertaking the 9/11 attacks behind his back. No, if we want to stop killing in Afghanistan, America must negotiate with Taliban, if this happened, this will be the end of Al-qaeda. For me, i don't support Taliban. When America withdraw from Afghanistan , Taliban will become very weak.

 

[russ_watters]

Well you can't really compare a cop to a soldier. A cop has strict regulations when it comes to pulling and using his gun (a soldier too but no one is there to keep them strict).

You're probably thinking that since the soldier used his gun more that means the regulations must not be as strict. I think you'll find that if you examine the rules of engagement of cops and soldiers, you'll find them to be surprisingly similar.

If a cop shoots someone, it usually has to be because they have pulled a gun and generally won't submit to the cop or even shot at him. They really do need justification to pull that trigger.

And that is different from war how?

In Britain, the cop needs a direct order from HQ before they can even consider pulling the trigger.

I highly doubt that. It would make self defense impossible for a cop because rarely do you have enough time for that.

If they shoot someone wrongly they can be sued and go to prison.

Soldiers too, though it is tough to sue someone from another country.

 

[JaredJames]

You're probably thinking that since the soldier used his gun more that means the regulations must not be as strict. I think you'll find that if you examine the rules of engagement of cops and soldiers, you'll find them to be surprisingly similar.

Yes, but in a war zone where fifty caliber guns are being fired from multiple angles along sides grenade launchers and rpg's, it can be difficult tracking down who killed who. So shooting a civilian in a war zone isn't going to be as bad as shooting a civilian in a police situation (from a discipline point of view).

And that is different from war how?

I'll give you this one, must have had an example in my head when I wrote this but it was a while ago.

I highly doubt that. It would make self defense impossible for a cop because rarely do you have enough time for that.

UK cops don't carry guns. The most offensive weapon they carry is the night stick and pepper spray. Special units are called to deal with armed response issues and they are giving orders according to the situation at hand.

Soldiers too, though it is tough to sue someone from another country.

Especially if you don't know who did it.

I was only trying to make the point that it can be worse for a soldier than a cop. As it's bound to be harder for a soldier to confirm to themselves that the 'combatant' they shot (particularly at range) is definitely not a civilian. Whereas most cop situations are close range with a much better idea of who is and isn't a threat. I just think it would be easier for a cop to confirm to themselves the killing was justified.

 

[Ghost803]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

 

[Count Iblis]

It's not so cut and dry. For the most part, US/UK soldiers do not plant roadside bombs or IED's. They generally do not shoot unless they come under fire. On the other hand, al Qaida and Taliban forces have massacred civilians intentionally, whereas US/UK/allies forces seem to do it unintentionally. However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.

I'm opposed to war, but that doesn't change that fact that if happens. I hope it ends quickly.

If one feels strongly about, join an NGO or other humanitarian group, and serve in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

It is not a fair comparison to compare the action of a military superior invading force by those of people who are resisting the invasion. You have to compare the tactics of the insurgents with what our plans were in case of an invasion of NATO countries that NATO would not be able to resist. The plans were very clear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

 

[drankin]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

I respect the people who work hard for a living. Particularly in thankless accupations that are very much required to make are communities liveable.

Such a comment is snooty.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

Haha - don't ask that question of anyone http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/toronto-strike.html" .

 

[drankin]

Haha - don't ask that question of anyone http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/toronto-strike.html" .

LOL, I hear your pain. Sounds like they are demanding monetary respect, or else.

 

[mheslep]

...UK cops don't carry guns. The most offensive weapon they carry is the night stick and pepper spray. Special units are called to deal with armed response issues and they are giving orders according to the situation at hand...

Yes that should be most UK cops don't carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Police_armed_uk.jpg

 

[JaredJames]

Yes that should be most UK cops don't carry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Police_armed_uk.jpg

No it shouldn't. What part of special units didn't you get? They are special armed response units. They undergoe special training not done by normal officers (obviously) and are called armed response officers. Yes, they have grown in numbers since the terrorist attacks (particularly at airports) but they are still considered a unit on their own and it is extremely rare you would see one 'taking a stroll' down your street (never happens in places outside of big cities although there are some which patrol in cars in certain areas that are known for gun/knife crime).

The wiki description calls them just officers but that is why I don't like wikipedia. Also if you knew anything about whitehall you would know why there is an armed division patrolling it (heres a hint parliament).

 

[mheslep]

No it shouldn't. What part of special units didn't you get? They are special armed response units. They undergoe special training not done by normal officers (obviously) and are called armed response officers. Yes, they have grown in numbers since the terrorist attacks (particularly at airports) but they are still considered a unit on their own and it is extremely rare you would see one 'taking a stroll' down your street (never happens in places outside of big cities although there are some which patrol in cars in certain areas that are known for gun/knife crime).

'Special' is your word, and simply because a cop undergoes 'special' training does not make him/her not a cop. My statement about "most cops don't carry" is empirically correct. Those Whitehall units are still police, they are not British soldiers. Your original statement that "UK cops don't carry guns" without qualification was simply false.

 

[DaveC426913]

'Special' is your word, and simply because a cop undergoes 'special' training does not make him/her not a cop. My statement about "most cops don't carry" is empirically correct. Those Whitehall units are still police, they are not British soldiers. Your original statement that "UK cops don't carry guns" without qualification was simply false.

I was about to say pretty much the exact same thing. They're cops; they carry guns. The "most" qualifier is appropriate.

 

[Ghost803]

Are you saying you don't respect your garbage man? Maybe you should start hauling your own trash to the dump.

I respect the people who work hard for a living. Particularly in thankless accupations that are very much required to make are communities liveable.

Such a comment is snooty.

Maybe the garbage man should try living without his monthly income, then I'll try hauling my own garbage.

 

[Huckleberry]

Ok, so you have an unreasonable hatred for both garbage men and the military. Fine. Your point would be more useful to this thread if you gave some kind of explanation as to why you feel this way, and more persuasive if you had a logical reason why anyone else should agree with you.

 

[drankin]

Maybe the garbage man should try living without his monthly income, then I'll try hauling my own garbage.

Or he could just skip your house and continue making a living without hauling your trash. Let's not stop there, maybe the plumbers could blacklist you too. Does your disrespect towards waste disposal extend to the police and firemen?

 

[Pupil]

I'm curious. The OP had very weak arguments, but suppose he liked Ghandi's philosophy of Pacifism and claimed that the troops were bad because their profession was to kill (regardless of whether it was in offense or defense).

I have my own misgivings about Pacifism, but I'd like to hear your rebuttals and I'll try to defend this position (though I might not do a very good job given that I disagree with it).

 

[Alfi]

I respect and pray for the troops as much as I do for my Garbage man.

I like it. to me, It says a good thing. Respect everyone, regardless of their job.
If you think positive, the 'as much as' can mean a lot.
If you think negative, the 'as much as' can mean a little.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm curious. The OP had very weak arguments, but suppose he liked Ghandi's philosophy of Pacifism and claimed that the troops were bad because their profession was to kill (regardless of whether it was in offense or defense).

I have my own misgivings about Pacifism, but I'd like to hear your rebuttals and I'll try to defend this position (though I might not do a very good job given that I disagree with it).

Pacifism works if you are directly involved in the altercation.

But if you see an injustice committed elsewhere, and your moral imperative tells you to come to the aid of the oppressed parties, pacifism's effectiveness approaches zero.

 

[mheslep]

Well put.

 

[Count Iblis]

Intervention to help oppressed people only works if you are neutral. Not neutral in the sense of being blind to who is doung the opressonand who is oppressed, of course. Rather, when the problem is solved and you have to set up a system for the long term, that you don't become party to any political conflicts, or are blinded by some ideology.

In case of Iraq, the US was was blinded by the Neo-Con idea of a "democratic Iraq". The minority Sunnis were not able to get their grievances addressed within Iraq's political system. When time for Bush was running out he did intervene by making consessions to the Sunnis and by pressuring the Iraqi government to crack down on Shia militias/death squads who until that time has been operating with the support of the interior ministery.

The US adminstration made propaganda by claiming that "The Surge is working" as if that vindicated the Bush line. The fundamental reason why things were not working until the surge was that the political process was flawed leading to parts of the population supporting militias/insurgents, which then allowed terrorists to exploit the situation.

The reason why the Bush adminstration did not fix the problem at an earlier stage was because in their minds all that they would have to do is make sure that Iraq was democratic and people were voting. Any violence that would occur despite that could then only be due to "terrorists" and they would have to be confronted with violence. The idea that you would have to overrule outcomes reached by the democratic processes in Iraq was taboo, as that would prove wrong the Neo-Con doctrine.

 

[DaveC426913]

Intervention to help oppressed people only works if you are neutral.

Well, not true. It certainly works if you're not neutral, although I suppose then it is more properly known as alliance. Depends on what the desired outcome is.

 

[Ghost803]

I don't necessarily disrespect or dislike garbage men. But I don't just sit there thinking about what great hardworking and brave people they are or some other bull. They get paid to take my trash. And I have little to no interaction with the dude, he might hate his job, be lazy, be peeing on my lawn, I don't know.

Same thing with the military, what we have is an almost mercenary force. Many are in it because of the financial benefit and because it was their last option. Some because they love to protect their country men, and others because they want to kill brown people(don't tell me that's not true. I went to high school with jacka**es who wanted to "mow down those sandn****rs" and is now serving in the Army.)

So why should I or we show blanket respect for this mercenary force?

 

[Al68]

So why should I or we show blanket respect for this mercenary force?

I respect the military because without them, we would be slaves to anyone who chooses to enslave us. I have no particular reason to greatly respect a mercenary force, but I actually know the difference.

And FWIT, I respect garbage men, too. We might be able to live in freedom without them, but it would be smelly freedom.

 

[DaveC426913]

So why should I or we show blanket respect for this mercenary force?

I have always felt that supporting the troops has absolutely nothing to do with their cause of righteousness and everything to do with the fact that they are our countrymen who, for whatever reason, are far overseas, away from their loved ones, lonely and possibly coming home in a body bag. We support them because they need to know that we care.

Likewise, Your mom may vehemently disagree with your decision to leave your hometown to go to New York and live in squalor trying to get into your dream of show business - but that will not stop her from sending you care packages weekly.

 

[tchitt]

Supporting the troops is about letting these men and women know that you feel for them and with them knowing the situation they've been placed in. You don't have to support the war to support the troops... they need all the support they can get. War is hell and it ruins people's lives. 1 in 3 homeless people in the United States is a veteran of a foreign war. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and things like it tend to lead to drug abuse and a general inability to function in the civilian world.

I think the idea that they're cut from the same cloth as murderers is disgusting. I've got family in Iraq and I can assure you they're good people.

 

[DaveC426913]

Same thing with the military, what we have is an almost mercenary force. Many are in it because of the financial benefit and because it was their last option. Some because they love to protect their country men, and others because they want to kill brown people(don't tell me that's not true. I went to high school with jacka**es who wanted to "mow down those sandn****rs" and is now serving in the Army.)

So why should I or we show blanket respect for this mercenary force?

A better question: why should you show blanket lack of respect because of a bad apple? Surely when it comes to judging the motives (if their motives are even relevant to the issue at-hand) of hundreds of thousands of individuals, you owe it to them to give them the benefit of the doubt. Or better yet, simply not judge that which you don't know.

 

[russ_watters]

Note that whether one likes/respects the members of the military or not doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they are murderers (as is the topic of the thread...). So ghost, could you explain what the relevance of your posts is to the thread?

 

[turbo]

My nephew and his wife are both lifers in the Navy. My youngest cousin and his wife were career Air Force, now retired. The daughter of another cousin was trained in military law enforcement, and was scheduled to rotate out the bad apples at Abu Ghraib when she turned up pregnant. We don't have to support the wars nor the policies of the administration in charge when they start the wars. It is important to let our military personnel know that we appreciate their sacrifices.

Lest we gloss this, remember that lots of the service-people overseas are National Guard, and had to give up their businesses, etc, when they were called up. Many others should have been able to join private life when their service was up, but were stop-lossed.

 

[Ghost803]

Note that whether one likes/respects the members of the military or not doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they are murderers (as is the topic of the thread...). So ghost, could you explain what the relevance of your posts is to the thread?

I mistook the word "support" for respect from the Original post. So I might be in the wrong.

But could someone explain what supporting the troops mean? I don't think it is material support as in sending them food or something.

 

[drankin]

I mistook the word support for respect from the Original post. So I might be in the wrong.

But could someone explain what supporting the troops mean? I don't think it is material support as in sending them food or something.

Morale support. Sometimes they might feel as though they are having to put their lives on the line for Americans who don't appreciate them. We want them to know that they aren't watching their fellow soldiers lose limbs and die for nothing. Bad morale can cost lives in war.

 

[russ_watters]

I mistook the word "support" for respect from the Original post. So I might be in the wrong.

Yes, respect is typically a component of support (not the main component*), but if that's the only sentence of the OP you read, then you completely missed the point of the thread. That was only an introduction. The reasons some people might have for supporting the troops are irrelevant. This thread is about the OP's reason for not supporting the troops (that he considers them murderers).

*Mostly, "I support the troops" simply means "I hope you don't die".

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't understand why everyone is all about supporting the troops

I do because I was once one of them.

These people kill other people

I never killed anyone. I think you are generalizing.

I believe killing is wrong, also war is wrong...

I believe this has been covered.

Am I out of line when I say I hate the troops as much as any other murderer/life taker?!

If you were an American, it would have been me that defended your right to say you hate them. Perhaps your British military does the same. If you were an Iraqi in the times of Hussein, you would probably be dead for having said such a thing. So it is difficult for me to say whether you are out of line or not.

I understand using troops for defense...

Very good. The best offense is a good defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick. etc, etc.

But look, Iraq did nothing to UK (where I'm from) and nothing to USA. We are the offense in this example...

I believe Iraq invaded Kuwait, which led to our invasion of Iraq.
Like a policeman coming across a crackhead stabbing an elderly woman to steal her purse, it is better to shoot the crackhead dead, rather than just watch, and have him repeat the same thing to another innocent victim the next night.
Wars are a bit more complicated than that. The crackhead is usually the leader of the nation. And people are brainwashed almost everywhere to love their leaders. So it's not as simple as taking out one person. His followers will support them to their deaths. I know this for a fact. My mother loved Hitler until she died a few years ago. She was 9 years old when he came to power. She entered the Luftwaffe at 16. And even though Hitler dragged her country to ruin, she still thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

I do not know why we invaded Iraq the second time, other than perhaps someone thought Saddam would do it again.

In my school we had to pray for the troops (catholic school >_>). And I never did. How can you pray for some people to kill other people?! (I wasn't atheist at that time). Guess what, Osama Bin Laden praises his 'troops' too for killing westerners

We don't praise our butchers for killing the cows we eat. Likewise, we do not praise our troops for killing. But they have a job to do. If they do not do it, then they will be dead. And then the other side will win, and despots will rule the world, and as I said before, you would be dead for questioning the state and it's glory.

This week, the Colbert Report is in Iraq and is shooting the TV show at a US-base. This is why I'm posting this topic... it reminded me of my views on the whole issue. And now I cannot even watch that show because they are always praising the troops over and over...

It just all seems so hypocritical. Hoping our side kills the other side... And yet teaching 'violence is wrong'. We are using violence on a mass scale and NOT as last resort...

I believe we are in the process of leaving.
Although you should not forget the past, one should not talk of the past as if it were the present, but use it as a reminder of what may happen again.

Also, it has been my impression that most of the civilian deaths were caused by sectarian violence, and not by the US or UK military.

I do not know how legitimate the following site is, but it seems to support my claim:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/page1

What do you guys think? Can you see where I'm coming from...

Yes. But you should join the British military anyways. Gandhi would be proud.

 

[tchitt]

Also, it has been my impression that most of the civilian deaths were caused by sectarian violence, and not by the US or UK military.

I've also heard that it's a tactic of the Taliban and their cronies to purposely kill iraqi/afghani civilians with rocket propelled grenades and bombs, then turn around and blame coalition forces to drum up opposition to them. Of course the United States would say that, but regardless of what the truth is but I don't think it's unbelievable. It's even likely.

 

[JaredJames]

I've also heard that it's a tactic of the Taliban and their cronies to purposely kill iraqi/afghani civilians with rocket propelled grenades and bombs, then turn around and blame coalition forces to drum up opposition to them. Of course the United States would say that, but regardless of what the truth is but I don't think it's unbelievable. It's even likely.

Given the numbers of people in the aircraft, world trade centres and in london during the bombings. The odds are some of them shared the same faith (perhaps not as strictly/fundamentally), as the terrorists. I fully believe they are capable (and certainly would) kill innocent civilians just to make it look like our militaries did and raise their own support.

I wonder if they ever considered that when hijacking the aircraft, ramming the towers or detonating the bombs? Can't 'look good to god' if you kill your own can it? Bet that lowered the virgin count in heaven!

 

[OmCheeto]

Can't 'look good to god' if you kill your own can it? Bet that lowered the virgin count in heaven!

I've skimmed through the Kuran, and it appears that the terrorists that were involved in the world trade center destruction could not have been Muslims. They violated every rule in the book. If they were, they'd be looking at a higher caliber of virgin in heaven.

But we're getting a bit off topic.

Some people have criticized our troops for the Abu Ghraib incident. Personally, it looked like a grade school hazing compared to the hack saw beheadings and carnage brought about by the opposition. Yet, we hold our soldiers to such a high standard, that many of them have been sent to prison. Perhaps they should have used the oppositions tactics and just killed the prisoners, dragged them to the other side of town, blamed it on Al-Qaida, and gone about their business. Naaaa... Lies are the tools of cowards and thieves.