News USA marines, war crimes, caught on video

[Adam]

Lyuokdea

Wow, another amazingly unwarrented statement.

Why?

Have you ever even been to America?

Yes.

Surely someone like myself for instance, who has been in the country for his entire life, may be more able to make an assesment of American people.

Actually I find that impartial outside observers are more reliable, as they ahve less emotional attachment.

The idea that we are all gung ho is a stereotype every bit as wrong as thinking that everybody from austrialia looks like the crocodile hunter.

I'm well aware that not every American is gung-ho. Their military training, however, is all like their college football training. "Ra ra ra! Go team! Hooyah!" Mass-produced, mindless automatons. And yes, I have worked with the USA military, and the military forces of other nations, many times.

Also, I have a friend of mine who was ambushed in Iraq by insurgents about two months ago, he was lucky to escape with only hearing loss and some small cuts and such, but the officer he was driving was killed.

I'm very sorry your friend was damaged.

Are you trying to say that U.S. troops who have been going through situations like that for 6 months should be held responsible for shooting an Iraqi who looked to be reaching for his gun?

Absolutely. And it is a hell of a stretch to say he was reaching for his gun. The gun was off to his side. To me, it looked more like he was trying to crawl away from the marines, and with good reason. They shot a wounded man in the back, executed him. The Australians have been there as long as the Americans, and, once again, have had zero reports of civilian casualties, and zero friendly fire incidents. Think about it.

Your analysis that a moving soldier who may be moving for a gun falls under the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field is not only completely wrong, it is also a ridiculously high standard to put on soldiers who are forced to make split-second life and death decisions.

So why is it wrong? Show me.

This peace loving philosophy cannot be applied to the world of split second decisions, you do not have the time to decide whether the action is moral or not, you only have time to do something.

You underestimate the decision-making capacity of a soldier. Well, of a properly trained soldier.

Lastly the assumption that war can be pretty and honorable only masks the horror of war and allows the bloodshed to continue.

Did I state that I think war is pretty and honourable?

War isn't pretty, nobody I've ever talked to who has been through the hell of combat has ever said that war can be governed by rules.

Need I remind you once again of the Australian record in Iraq? Basing your opinion on the words of badly trained people who went through hell because they were badly trained is just that, basing your opinion on the words of badly trained people who went through hell because they were badly trained.

What would happen if every time an enemy soldier fell to the ground, everybody instantly stopped shooting at them?

Do you really need a reply to this silliness?

The enemy would start to fall to the ground intentionally and then pull another weapon and start firing again. Don't try to cover up war and pretend that it can be made sterile, and don't bring your self-rightousness into a debate about an issue so ugly.

"War is hell. Innocents die." It's just an excuse, nothing more. Stop spewing it. It's old, and it's wrong.

 

[Hurkyl]

The Australians have been there as long as the Americans, and, once again, have had zero reports of civilian casualties, and zero friendly fire incidents. Think about it.

Given this statement, I would think that the Australians are participating little if at all in conflict.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Given this statement, I would think that the Australians are participating little if at all in conflict.

You would be wrong.

For the education of those who don't know much about the various types of fighting forces, try the essays of Brian Ross at: http://www.vwip.org/topictop.html

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
Nice to say, but show me. Quote the lie for me.

I did!

It does? Show me this law.

You posted it!

No, he wouldn't.

COs get court martialed for not protecting their troops. That is part of their job. You have a VERY distorted view of how warfare and the military work.

Wow. I've heard this before. Criticise anything about the USA or its government or people or Hollywood or anything, and some twist starts yelling "Bigot!" Grow up. Forget the ad hominems and focus on the words I have actually typed.

I did! I quoted your lie! And I've said it many, many times: a negative opinion about the US government doesn't automatically make you a bigot. A negative opinion based on your own lies and personal biases does.

How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military.

How many Australian soldiers on the front lines in that war?

You would be wrong.

Hurkyl was asking about Iraq. You responded with a site about Vietnam. How many troops exactly does Australia have in Iraq right now and what are they doing?

You logic is flawed because you imply an equality between the efforts and exposure of the US and Australian forces where none exists.

 

[The_Professional]

I watched the video over and over again and it didn't specifically mention of a weapon the Iraqi is holding/about to grab/weapon by his side.

But looking from the distance the Marines were shooting at, adding to the fact that it took them 3 shots to hit him. It would be hard for them to determine whether the Iraqi was indeed holding a weapon or about to grab one.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Adam
DO you know how pathetic it is when all people can do is yell "Bigot!" any time they feel the slightest bit uneasy about their state? Give it up. Cease the ad hominems and focus on the actual content.

Ok I withdraw the bigot statement and simply say that you have no realistic conception about how things are in wartime. It least it seems that way based on your statements here. It's called defending yourself.

How many reports of civilians killed by Ausrtalians in that little war? Zero. How many friendly fire incidents caused by Australians? Zero. The "War is hell, and innocents die" line is basically just a way to make yourself feel better about the crappy standards involved in the USA military.

How many aussie troops committed to Iraq vs how many American troops? And the US wasn't the only country with friendly fire casualties.

That is an assumption which leads to war crimes tribunals. More likely the man would surrender in the hopes of receiving medical treatment.

Now who's seen too many movies? Are there international laws? I'm not arguing against it. But in the reality of actual combat, you have to make split second decision and always put yourself ahead of your enemy. Period.

Tell me something. When the police in your town pull someone over, do they shoot tehm immediately, just in case, and have a laugh about it? Or do they keep their weapons prepared and try to secure the subject? Remember, before you answer, that a cop will die as fast from a crmiinal's bullet as a soldier will from an enemy soldier's bullet.

This comment is stupid, but you seem like you're serious so I'll answer it. OF COURSE NOT because we don't KNOW that every driver is trying to kill us. WE KNOW that every enemy soldier is trying to shoot us. Now I feel stupid just for responding to this.

There are, however, My Lai massacres and such. And the fact that Australians caused no civilian deaths or friendly fire incidents in that invasion. Think about it.

Ya I got that the first time, but AGAIN, run the numbers and percentages.

Absolutely. Those who escape a battle may indeed run off and rejoin their comrades, and come at you again. However, the laws of war specifically state that you can not kill them. If they are unarmed, defeated, and running away, you can not shoot them. And no, I do not recall the specific law; it was years ago when I read it. [/B]

There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.

But regardless of all of that- you get indignant about being called a biggot, yet you're making slurs about the american army, then get defensive when they are responded to. I already acknowledge that their behavior after the shooting was unacceptable, but I believe they made the right choice. In fact, if they hadn't laughed and cheered afterwards, that clip wouldn't have even been newsworthy.

 

[Adam]

russ_watters

I did!

No, you didn't. Humour me and post it.

You posted it!

Apparently I did not post what you think I posted.

COs get court martialed for not protecting their troops.

COs can be courtmartialed for being negligent. They will not be courtmartialed for obeying the law.

You have a VERY distorted view of how warfare and the military work.

I guess my time in the military did that to me, yes?

I did! I quoted your lie!

No, you didn't. Humour me and quote the entirety of this supposed lie.

And I've said it many, many times: a negative opinion about the US government doesn't automatically make you a bigot. A negative opinion based on your own lies and personal biases does.

My opinion of US military training is based on my experience working with them, and on the numbers resulting from their activities.

How many Australian soldiers on the front lines in that war?

I believe about 1,200, mainly ground attack strike missions and special forces operations for front line roles.

Hurkyl was asking about Iraq. You responded with a site about Vietnam. How many troops exactly does Australia have in Iraq right now and what are they doing?

1) The site about Vietnam was for Brian Ross's essays, which give a good accounting of the differences between US and Australian forces.

2) Now, we have a ship or two on patrol in the gulf, some pilots flying patrols, and special forces conducting a few missions here and there.

You logic is flawed because you imply an equality between the efforts and exposure of the US and Australian forces where none exists.

Australian troops were in Baghdad three days before US troops got there. Zero civilian casualties. Zero friendly fire incidents.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by The_Professional
I watched the video over and over again and it didn't specifically mention of a weapon the Iraqi is holding/about to grab/weapon by his side.

It looks like the rifle on the ground to the man's right, to me.

 

[Adam]

Zantra

Ok I withdraw the bigot statement and simply say that you have no realistic conception about how things are in wartime. It least it seems that way based on your statements here. It's called defending yourself.

So you have worked in the military, and worked with the military forces of several nations? Are we receiving the benefits of your experience here?

How many aussie troops committed to Iraq vs how many American troops? And the US wasn't the only country with friendly fire casualties.

I believe the US committed something like 150,000 troops. Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons. Over 8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead. More than half the US soldiers killed in Iraq died after the war supposedly ended. Rate of US deaths by friendly fire this time: 10% (with another 20 deaths under investigation). This is of course better than the 24% in Desert Storm, and the 20% in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math.

Now who's seen too many movies? Are there international laws? I'm not arguing against it. But in the reality of actual combat, you have to make split second decision and always put yourself ahead of your enemy. Period.

See my previous response. The difference is in the training.

This comment is stupid, but you seem like you're serious so I'll answer it. OF COURSE NOT because we don't KNOW that every driver is trying to kill us. WE KNOW that every enemy soldier is trying to shoot us. Now I feel stupid just for responding to this.

Wrong again. During WW2, something like 40% of German and Japanese planes shot down by Americans were shot down by about 1% of American pilots. Most people don't try to kill other people. There are not ravening hordes of angry people foaming at the mouth, desperate for American blood. The world just isn't like that. If you think it is, then you have a very skewed bias.

There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.

Again, soldiers are capable of making decisions. Indeed, that is what officers are actually for.

But regardless of all of that- you get indignant about being called a biggot, yet you're making slurs about the american army, then get defensive when they are responded to.

You're mistaking slurs for observations based on experience and undeniable numbers.

I already acknowledge that their behavior after the shooting was unacceptable, but I believe they made the right choice.

Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.

 

[Hurkyl]

2) Now, we have a ship or two on patrol in the gulf, some pilots flying patrols, and special forces conducting a few missions here and there.

I believe the US committed something like 150,000 troops. Of those, 1700 deserted, 17 killed themselves, and 10 were evacuated for mental health reasons. Over 8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead. More than half the US soldiers killed in Iraq died after the war supposedly ended. Rate of US deaths by friendly fire this time: 10% (with another 20 deaths under investigation). This is of course better than the 24% in Desert Storm, and the 20% in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math.

In other words, I was right?

How should I interpret those other figures? According to http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html , per year, 36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.

8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead (incidentally, that is a high estimate, based on what I was able to find), but how many military are dead? What's a typical ratio between civilian and military casualties in a ground/urban war? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm gives an interesting baseline.

I can only find statistics on american friendly fire... but percentage of casualties due to friendly fire is not a good statistic; to do any reasonable comparison you'd have to go with the ratio of number of friendly fire deaths per year to the total number of personel. (I'm not even sure that's a good statistic, though, because larger units are inherently more likely to suffer from friendly fire, and this statistic doesn't account for the frequency, type, and intensity of the conflict)

Your turn to do the math.

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl

In other words, I was right?

Please read the figures again. Here, I'll do the math that was apparently beyond you:

Desertions:
- USA: 1700
- Australia: 0

Friendly Fire:
- USA: 10%
- Australia: 0

Civilians Killed:
- USA: 8000
- Australia: 0

Soldiers evacuated due to mental problems:
- USA: 10
- Australia: 0

36 out of every 150,000 people in Finland commit suicide. Also, 10 cases of severe mental health under extreme stress out of 150,000 sounds like a great ratio to me.

1) I'm glad you think their loss is acceptable.

2) You're quoting an annual figure for Finland.

8,000 Iraqi civilians are reported dead (incidentally, that is a high estimate, based on what I was able to find),

Actually that is a low estimate. Once again (since you apparently ignore the resources I link to, perhaps to better hold on to your misconceptions), here is a source: www.iraqbodycount.net. Check their sources.

but how many military are dead? What's a typical ratio between civilian and military casualties in a ground/urban war? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm gives an interesting baseline.

Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers. This did not happen. Instead we have a much high ratio of dead civilians.

I can only find statistics on american friendly fire... but percentage of casualties due to friendly fire is not a good statistic; to do any reasonable comparison you'd have to go with the ratio of number of friendly fire deaths per year to the total number of personel. (I'm not even sure that's a good statistic, though, because larger units are inherently more likely to suffer from friendly fire, and this statistic doesn't account for the frequency, type, and intensity of the conflict)

Luckily professionals have done the work for us. I have a declassified report which takes those factors into account, which I will upload to the net tonight. I'll supply the address later.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zantra
There may be certain international laws, but you don't have a referee on the battlefield calling a 2 minute penalty for atrocities of war. You try to make all sound very simple and orderly. That is not war. The goal of a war is to win, and regardless of the laws, if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.

Because of the realities of war, the laws are NOT so stringent that you can be tried for such a battlefield decision. This is the part of the interpretation of the laws that escapes Adam. In a difficult situation to evaluate, the soldier who's actions are being called into question gets the benefit of the doubt. He is allowed to assume the worst when he lacks the information needed to see the situation more clearly.

No, you didn't. Humour me and post it.

Its on the previous page. The first quote is your lie. The second quote is Hurkyl calling out out on the lie, and the third quote is you trying to brush it aside.

I guess my time in the military did that to me, yes?

I guess so. That doesn't speak well for what they trained you.

I believe about 1,200, mainly ground attack strike missions and special forces operations for front line roles.

So what you are saying is that Australia has only a couple dozen ground troops in Iraq and a squadron or two of fighters? So at most, they have a total of about 100 people in combat. We have several hundred thousand. Hmm... so how exactly are Australians going to get themselves into this kind of situation? Life is easy when there aren't any tough situations to deal with.

Australian troops were in Baghdad three days before US troops got there. Zero civilian casualties. Zero friendly fire incidents.

Doing what exactly?

Australia committed something like 1,200 troops. Zero deaths from friendly fire. Zero reports of civilian casulties. You do the math.

When you add apples to oranges, you can get banannas, pears, or whatever you want.

Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.

You wouldn't have lasted very long. We lost a lot of soldiers in Iraq because of their own decisions not to fire or the rules of engagement preventing them from firing.

I'm SURE you remember the family of Iraqis who were killed at a checkpoint by American soldiers late in the active part of the war. Why did they die? Because several days before, a few Americans gave an Iraqi in a cab the benefit of the doubt and DIED for it when he detonated the bomb in the trunk.

So again, Australians have not been in a situation where they needed to make that choice in this war.

Your turn to do the math.

The problem with statistics here, Hurkyl is that the numbers are so low they start to lose any meaning. It was statistically safer for a soldier to be in combat in Iraq in 1991 than at home on leave. Does that make war safe? No, it just means that our casualties were extrordinarily low. And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.

Its like the Concorde - until 2 years ago it was statistically the safest airliner flying. Now its the most dangerous. What happened? Its first and only crash.

Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers. This did not happen. Instead we have a much high ratio of dead civilians.

Now you're starting to get it, Adam. In a war with so few deaths, drawing ratios like that becomes meaningless.

 

[Mattius_]

Adam, Russ did clearly point out your lie in his post. It was obvious that you contradicted yourself. Now how credible should we make an incompetent person such as yourself?

Secondly,

Zantra said:

if someone's trying to kill you, you shoot first, and face the consequences later, because at least you live to face them.

Then you said:

Then consider me, an actual soldier, more humane than yourself. I would not have shot the man.

This is a great example of natural selection. Zantra blows the guy away, and lives. You don't shoot the guy, get shot yourself, and take your genes away from the gene pool. Evolution at work.

As Russ said, compassion pays a high price.

Now, as for Iraqi military deaths, I recall a high ranking colonel on the O'Reilly Factor to report over 100,000 Iraqi military deaths just before taking baghdad *Source pentagon*.(Im sure he was gagged after that). I would predict the fall of baghdad cost another 25,000 and probably another 20,000 in conflict after largescale war was declared done. So in total, i would predict 145,000 Iraqi military deaths.

 

[Adam]

russ_watters

Because of the realities of war, the laws are NOT so stringent that you can be tried for such a battlefield decision. This is the part of the interpretation of the laws that escapes Adam.

Actually, you can. This is why the ICC was formed. It's also why the USA refused to sign up. Because of their terrible record regarding just this sort of thing.

In a difficult situation to evaluate, the soldier who's actions are being called into question gets the benefit of the doubt.

An unarmed man, laying face-down, head away, injured... I think the victim would receive the benefit of the doubt in this case. Especially given the cheering, and the "Hooyah! Go team! Let's kill another!"

Its on the previous page. The first quote is your lie. The second quote is Hurkyl calling out out on the lie, and the third quote is you trying to brush it aside.

The only thing I can see that you might be referring to is my comment about the gun. I asked you repeatedly to show me this alleged lie, but you didn't, so I will assume you are making a ridiculous error in referring to that. Now follow this very carefully. It's not that difficult.

1) The man is unarmed.

2) The gun seems to be visible on the ground to his side.

3) The man is UNARMED.

4) The gun is irrelevant since THE MAN IS UNARMED.

Get it yet?

So what you are saying is that Australia has only a couple dozen ground troops in Iraq and a squadron or two of fighters?

As I said, 1,200. That is slightly more than a couple of dozen.

So at most, they have a total of about 100 people in combat.

They do not release data on the precise numbers involved in special forces operations.

Doing what exactly?

The same as always. Preparing the way for the American troops. Scouting the situation, laying markers, et cetera.

When you add apples to oranges, you can get banannas, pears, or whatever you want.

Zero civilian deaths. Zero friendly fire incidents. Talking rubbish about fruit won't change that record.

We lost a lot of soldiers in Iraq because of their own decisions not to fire or the rules of engagement preventing them from firing.

No, you lost a lot of people due to 1) normal deaths from warfare, 2) bad training, 3) ultimately, because a politician made it happen.

I'm SURE you remember the family of Iraqis who were killed at a checkpoint by American soldiers late in the active part of the war. Why did they die? Because several days before, a few Americans gave an Iraqi in a cab the benefit of the doubt and DIED for it when he detonated the bomb in the trunk.

Indeed, I do remember the incident, and several others like it. The machine-gunner opened up on the car without orders. After the shooting stopped, his sergeant said "Congratulations. You just killed a family." The sergeant, you see, knew enough to do something other than shoot at the first sign of anything moving. However, due to terrible training, the soldier did not wait for order; he just fired.

So again, Australians have not been in a situation where they needed to make that choice in this war.

You do realize that Australians have been in almost every war the USA has fought since WW1, yes? Plus a few extras?

The problem with statistics here, Hurkyl is that the numbers are so low they start to lose any meaning. It was statistically safer for a soldier to be in combat in Iraq in 1991 than at home on leave. Does that make war safe? No, it just means that our casualties were extrordinarily low. And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.

Ah, so saying they don't make sense is the easy way to brush it under the rug. Right.

Now you're starting to get it, Adam. In a war with so few deaths, drawing ratios like that becomes meaningless.

I'm afraid this is the bit that demonstrates how badly you don't get it. Innocent people are dead. That is the bit that matters most. And it is the bit that most needs to be understood.

 

[Adam]

Mattius_

Adam, Russ did clearly point out your lie in his post. It was obvious that you contradicted yourself. Now how credible should we make an incompetent person such as yourself?

Show me. I really don't see it.

This is a great example of natural selection. Zantra blows the guy away, and lives. You don't shoot the guy, get shot yourself, and take your genes away from the gene pool. Evolution at work.

Or, I don't shoot the guy. Myself and my comrades approach, guns ready, kick the man's gun furtehr away, make sure he is secure, then apply first aid.

As Russ said, compassion pays a high price.

I guess we just have different philosophies then. I consider that execution of a wounded, unarmed man a far higher price.

 

[Hurkyl]

Please read the figures again.

You too:
Americans: 150,000
Australians: 1200

1) I'm glad you think their loss is acceptable.

2) You're quoting an annual figure for Finland.

Yes. The suicide rate for US military personel is less than that of the average joe in several developed nations. I find that somewhat impressive.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply by (1), could you spell it out for me?

Actually that is a low estimate. Once again (since you apparently ignore the resources I link to, perhaps to better hold on to your misconceptions), here is a source: www.iraqbodycount.net. Check their sources.

Actually, the figure I quoted came from the first website I could find on the topic. Until then I had no personal opinion in any direction on this figure. *shrug*

Let's consider the figures from your source. China during WW2: military 1,350,000; civilian 850,000 (Eckhardt). Using your example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead American soldiers.

No, using my example, we would expect maybe 12 to 13 thousand dead iraqi soldiers.

And drawing ratios between the types of casualties gives results that don't make a whole lot of sense.

You're probably right, but I'm not the one who first brought those figures into the discussion. Whatever the case, they certainly do not support Adam's position.

 

[Lyuokdea]

Originally posted by russ_watters
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.

There is what everybody is referring to, first post on page 3. Anyway,

First, off, there are 1200 Australians serving in Iraq, but according to http://slate.msn.com/id/2085428/

Howard noted that Australia would keep in the Iraqi theater a naval task group, an Army commando element ("for a brief period"), two PC-3 patrol planes, two C-130 transport planes, some air-traffic controllers, security for the Australian mission in Baghdad, and a team of experts hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Together, these elements add up to 1,200 personnel.

First off that means that most of the Australian military is not in active combat, secondly those that are are flying fighter planes, meaning that they have probably dropped bombs, and those bombs have probably killed civilians, it is unlikely that large numbers of bombs have been dropped and have not killed any innocents, where are your statistics to the contrary?


Secondly, your accusation of the soldiers for cheering after they killed an iraqi, is while not extremely nice, probably more of a natural response to what is actually going on inside of you after you kill somebody. I'm sure you've been in a pressure situation where you've found yourself being threatened, getting into a cheering or screaming emotional high is not necessarily a result of anything gung-ho or wrong about you.

 

[Mattius_]

Good post Lyuokdea.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Lyuokdea
Howard noted that Australia would keep in the Iraqi theater a naval task group, an Army commando element ("for a brief period"), two PC-3 patrol planes, two C-130 transport planes, some air-traffic controllers, security for the Australian mission in Baghdad, and a team of experts hunting for weapons of mass destruction. Together, these elements add up to 1,200 personnel.

Jeez, I was giving Adam the benefit of the doubt in assuming that his description of the disposition of Aussie forces was more or less accurate. According to that, NONE of them are combat forces: ground, air, or otherwise (maybe the naval forces, but there wasn't a whole lot of naval combat besides firing cruise missiles and launching planes). No special forces, no combat aircraft. Heck, our civilian airline pilots are seeing more combat ferrying cargo to Baghdad (several civilian planes have been hit by enemy fire).

So is this another lie, Adam or do you have a source for your information? Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you can support that:

Scouting the situation, laying markers, et cetera.

So in other words, NOT firing any weapons? Kinda easy to avoid killing anyone if you don't fire your weapon.

Hey, in last night's Eagles game, I didn't throw any interceptions! I'm a better quarterback than Donnovan McNab!

Adam...[zz)]

 

[russ_watters]

For those actually interested in discussing the ethics of this, it really is a good case study. The debate/discussion on PBS I mentioned (still looking for it) has a portion where the moderator throws just such hypotheticals at a former army captain for reflex reactions. The other members of the panel were all generals and every now and then they disagreed and then discussed the specific case. The cases can actually be fit into somewhat of a spectrum like this:

What if he's standing there shooting at you?
What if he's standing there pointing his gun in the air?
What if he's injured but still holding his gun, but its not pointed at you?
What if he's injured, trying to get up and his gun is lying next to him?
What if he's lying unconscious with his gun on his chest?
What if he's lying unconscious (or dead) with no gun in sight?

Clearly at the top end, you shoot him. Clearly at the bottom you don't. In the middle, it can get VERY tough to choose - and your life DOES often depend on the choice you make in a split-second.

Even at the bottom though, there are assumptions that have been made - some you (or the soldier in question) may not even be conscioius of. Adam made some that I let go, but let's discuss some now:

Does the soldier have a backup weapon? We've been operating on the assumption that he does not, but do we really know that? Is that a reasonable assumption? We don't know and it isn't a reasonable assumption. For your own safety (and the safety of your comrades) you must assume that he does. If he has a grenade, he could simply pull the pin as you come up him to take him into custody. There was the suggestion that he was setting up a bomb - he may have had a way of triggering it within reach.

Does the soldier have any comrades? Ie, is it safe for you to even approach him? Now this isn't exactly related to whether or not you should shoot him, but Adam suggested he actually WAS in custody. From the point of view of the camera in the video, he could have had a comrade within a few feet of him and we might not have been able to see. So it wasn't reasonable to believe it was even POSSIBLE to take him into custody, much less act as if he was already in custody. That may have just been a way for Adam to try to connect rules from a different situation (treatment of POWs) to this one, but in any case, whether its possible to capture him is relevant to whether or not you can shoot him.

How wounded is he? It is virtually impossible to tell from more than 20 feet if someone is dead, unconscious, or just acting. Writing in pain is tougher to fake, but still - what exactly do we know about his injuries from watching the tape? And with shock and adrenaline, even severe injuries might not keep someone from fighting. Read some medal of honor citations (all are available online) for more about what people can do AFTER being mortally wounded.

The ethics of these assumptions is simple: you are allowed to make whatever reasonable assumptions you need to for your own safety and the safety of your comrades. That means you can/DO assume that he has a grenade you can't see. You DO assume he has comrades that you can't see who are able to help him (and kill you) if you try to approach him. You DO assume that he is less injured and more capable of fighting than he appears to be.

It is because of all the things that you don't and maybe can't know that the rules are not that stringent or specific when it comes to evaluating these situations after the fact. You don't ever have the opportunity to capture someone who is naked, alone in the middle of the desert, and has a tranquilizer dart sticking out of his butt to assure he's unconscious. Combat is never that simple.

 

[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.