No, it isn't. There is no debate. We rigidly follow the law.
Oh, well, if there's a PBS debate about it...
Essentially, you're wrong. The law in question is here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d...fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3?OpenDocument
No, it doesn't.
No, it wasn't. I have never been impressed by US officers.
I was just about to say that about you. Justifying murder. Ridiculous.
Then you would be an armed thug, not a soldier. And no, it is not what any man would do.
Pure bollocks. You've been watching too many Rambo movies.
Adam,
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.
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.
Isn't that pretty much what the US has been doing from the start?
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.
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 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.
Yep. Bush is quite happy to send other peoples' kids to war.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, yes.
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.
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.
That is EXACTLY how the laws Adam is citing work.
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?
Irrelevent.
He is visibly rolling around in pain. That is quite different to being able to pick up a gun and go Rambo on people.
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'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!"?
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.
Really? Outside of movies?
That's why we have laws. You don't assume, you don't gamble, you don't play cowboy. You follow the rules.
Lol. Adam, when you say something that is not true, that's 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.
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.
1) He was in the open.
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.
I think you'll find that the laws of war count that guy as a valid target.
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.
Nice to say, but show me. Quote the lie for me.
It does? Show me this law.
No, he wouldn't.
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.
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.
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.
That is an assumption which leads to war crimes tribunals. More likely the man would surrender in the hopes of receiving medical treatment.
That depends entirely on: 1) how you are wounded; 2) which Hollywood movies you like.
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.
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.
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.
Why?
Yes.
Actually I find that impartial outside observers are more reliable, as they ahve less emotional attachment.
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.
I'm very sorry your friend was damaged.
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.
So why is it wrong? Show me.
You underestimate the decision-making capacity of a soldier. Well, of a properly trained soldier.
Did I state that I think war is pretty and honourable?
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.
Do you really need a reply to this silliness?
"War is hell. Innocents die." It's just an excuse, nothing more. Stop spewing it. It's old, and it's wrong.
You would be wrong.
I did!
You posted it!
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.
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 Australian soldiers on the front lines in that war?
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?
No, you didn't. Humour me and post it.
Apparently I did not post what you think I posted.
COs can be courtmartialed for being negligent. They will not be courtmartialed for obeying the law.
I guess my time in the military did that to me, yes?
No, you didn't. Humour me and quote the entirety of this supposed lie.
My opinion of US military training is based on my experience working with them, and on the numbers resulting from their activities.
I believe about 1,200, mainly ground attack strike missions and special forces operations for front line roles.
1) The site about Vietnam was for Brian Ross's essays, which give a good accounting of the differences between US and Australian forces.
Australian troops were in Baghdad three days before US troops got there. Zero civilian casualties. Zero friendly fire incidents.
It looks like the rifle on the ground to the man's right, to me.
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?
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.
See my previous response. The difference is in the training.
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.
Again, soldiers are capable of making decisions. Indeed, that is what officers are actually for.
You're mistaking slurs for observations based on experience and undeniable numbers.
Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.
Please read the figures again. Here, I'll do the math that was apparently beyond you:
1) I'm glad you think their loss is acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 so. That doesn't speak well for what they trained you.
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.
Doing what exactly?
When you add apples to oranges, you can get banannas, pears, or whatever you want.
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.
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.
Now you're starting to get it, Adam. In a war with so few deaths, drawing ratios like that becomes meaningless.
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.
An unarmed man, laying face-down, head away, injured... I think the victim would receive the benefit of the doubt in this case. Especially given the cheering, and the "Hooyah! Go team! Let's kill another!"
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.
As I said, 1,200. That is slightly more than a couple of dozen.
They do not release data on the precise numbers involved in special forces operations.
The same as always. Preparing the way for the American troops. Scouting the situation, laying markers, et cetera.
Zero civilian deaths. Zero friendly fire incidents. Talking rubbish about fruit won't change that record.
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.
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.
You do realize that Australians have been in almost every war the USA has fought since WW1, yes? Plus a few extras?
Ah, so saying they don't make sense is the easy way to brush it under the rug. Right.
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.
Show me. I really don't see it.
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.
I guess we just have different philosophies then. I consider that execution of a wounded, unarmed man a far higher price.
Whatever the case, they certainly do not support Adam's position.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 in other words, NOT firing any weapons? Kinda easy to avoid killing anyone if you don't fire your weapon.
