News USA marines, war crimes, caught on video

[Adam]

Hurkyl

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.

 

[Adam]

Lyuokdea

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.

 

[Adam]

russ_watters

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.

 

[Adam]

russ_watters

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 let's 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 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.

 

[Njorl]

[q]
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.
[/q]

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

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Adam]

Njorl

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.

 

[Njorl]

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

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl

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.[/color]

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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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_]

Ok Adam, since you are the only person in here that cannot understand simple logic, I am 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 wouldn't 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, let's 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!, that's 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]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I seem to remember 27 being something other than a suicide rate figure...

Oh, man that's 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.

 

[Adam]

Mattius_

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 wouldn't 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, let's 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!, that's 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.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Oh, man that's 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[/color].

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[/color].

This is the comparison you made. Suicides in Finland against mental health of US soldiers in Iraq. Final score: Finland 15, USA military 27[/color].

Get your facts straight before you complain, russ. Someone else introduced the comparison.

 

[Lyuokdea]

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]

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, let's 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]

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]

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 - that's just a few more days to think about not being at home.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Lee Harvey Oswald - United States Marine Corps
Excellent shootist by any standard

 

[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.

 

[Adam]

Lyuokdea

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[/color] again suicides in Finland[/color].

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[/color], Finland has 26.4[/color].

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.

 

[Adam]

Lyuokdea

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, let's 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.

 

[kat]

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. Give me a break!

 

[Adam]

russ_watters

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?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Lee Harvey Oswald - United States Marine Corps
Excellent shootist by any standard

Sucker. Jimmy Hoffa was the shooter.

 

[Adam]

Kat

Only one problem, it's in regards to vietnam veterans children...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.

 

[kat]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

Pot to kettle

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.

 

[Adam]

Kat

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.

 

[Adam]

Pot to kettle

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."[/color]

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."[/color]

This is all on page 4 of this thread.

There you go, Hurkyl. Demonstrated once again. Read more carefully, Mister Pot.

 

[Hurkyl]

And yet, as the evidence clearly shows, I was not comparing mental health problems to suicides, contrary to what you've been claiming.

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl

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."[/color]

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."[/color]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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]

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 irrelevant 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.

 

[member 5645]

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]

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

 

[Adam]

The footage was bought by, and is owned by, CNN. Whether CNN aired that footage is a different matter.

 

[The_Professional]

I'd rather see the original, unedited footage

 

[member 5645]

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)]