Haditha
Well, it's all over the news, the web, and blogs, so I might as well comment on this one, right? I mean, everyone else is doing it... 
How many suckerpunches to our armed forces are we going to tolerate from the media and their associates in government?But that's not quite there. It takes Heidi and Kit from Euphoric Reality to really say what needs to be said:
The military does a dirty, disgusting job so we don’t have to. The very least we can do is let them do it the way they were trained to do it–the way it needs to be done. The sooner the enemy’s will is broken, the sooner our troops all come home for good.Look, folks, you might not want to hear about it, but Marines are trained. They are trained to kill people and break things. That's what they do. If you don't want people to die, DON'T SEND IN THE MARINES! It really is that simple. No, all the details may have not been released, but I've already seen enough. The only facts I need to know are that the Marines were deployed to kill people and break things. They did. So what's the problem? If these Marines are tried for "murder," which they probably will be (after all, Murtha has already convicted them), for killing innocents, I want to see every pilot in the Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force tried for killing "innocents" when they dropped their bombs and hit any "civilian" target. It's a damn war. People die in a war. That's why they're called wars. And yes, if you're not uncomfortable with that, there is something wrong with you. War is not a good thing. It's not clean. It's ugly and messy...and people die. Feel free to hate war, that's not a bad thing. But don't punish Marines who are doing what they've been trained to do.
"No one ever won a war by dying for their country, you win a war by getting the other dumb son of a bitch to die for his country." -- General MacArthur (or Patton, or someone else who knew how to win a war -- NOT the leftist U.S. press)
Comments
1
Patton said that, not MacArther:
http://www.military-quotes.com/Patton.htm
It was in the movie too.
Convicting the Marines of anything isn't going to help the situation. We do not need our armed forces hesitating about political fallouts in every engagement.
http://www.military-quotes.com/Patton.htm
It was in the movie too.
Convicting the Marines of anything isn't going to help the situation. We do not need our armed forces hesitating about political fallouts in every engagement.
Posted by: Ryan at June 01, 2006 05:50 PM (V8DUg)
2
I've heard that quote attributed to both generals. I'll adjust the post, thanks.
Posted by: Ogre at June 01, 2006 05:53 PM (/k+l4)
3
I hate to be the one to "rain on your parade" but - if it's proved to be true - what those marines did was nothing like they were supposed to be 'trained' to do. Unless you call spending hours going door to door killing innocents, kids, women, anyone they could get their hands on... acceptable marine behaviour? Somehow I can't see that, not if you spent 5 years in the service and understand the difference between control and chaos.
I can't believe anyone could defend this type of action. I know about the urge for revenge, and yes, even Irish troops (peacekeepers at that) have been in similar situations in the Leb... but their commanders have always kept a lid on things, reinforced the chain of command, held the line which seperates trained soldiers from animals. Of course there have been occasions when collegues get killed and the rest of the unit wants revenge, but that's not how it's done. Combatants are one thing... civvies are entirely another, especially unarmed and unsuspecting ones.
In this case (and I do hope it's not true, but so far all evidence is to the contrary) - these marines would appear to be about as far from honourable as you can get. If this is what America holds up as 'the best of the best' then it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
On the other hand if they are being unfairly tried by media and it all proves to be a fiction - then fair play. Vindication due and apologies close behind, and I'll be the first in line... but I have to tell you as someone who has been following the various _commentaries and news blitzes on Iraq, this one has all the hallmarks of really really bad news because it 'smells' true.
I can't believe anyone could defend this type of action. I know about the urge for revenge, and yes, even Irish troops (peacekeepers at that) have been in similar situations in the Leb... but their commanders have always kept a lid on things, reinforced the chain of command, held the line which seperates trained soldiers from animals. Of course there have been occasions when collegues get killed and the rest of the unit wants revenge, but that's not how it's done. Combatants are one thing... civvies are entirely another, especially unarmed and unsuspecting ones.
In this case (and I do hope it's not true, but so far all evidence is to the contrary) - these marines would appear to be about as far from honourable as you can get. If this is what America holds up as 'the best of the best' then it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
On the other hand if they are being unfairly tried by media and it all proves to be a fiction - then fair play. Vindication due and apologies close behind, and I'll be the first in line... but I have to tell you as someone who has been following the various _commentaries and news blitzes on Iraq, this one has all the hallmarks of really really bad news because it 'smells' true.
Posted by: Coyote at June 01, 2006 07:13 PM (/k+l4)
4
I think you've made a much more general leap that I did?: "spending hours going door to door?"
Where did that one come from? This was in the heat of battle, while explosions were ripping off all around everyone. Bomb explodes, people die, Marines shoot, others die. I'm not seeing any cold, calculated murder -- there wasn't time to plan or even consider seeking revenge (from what I've seen and read).
And "unarmed and unsuspecting civvies?" Again, this has been proven that it's not the case -- the war is against terrorists. They don't stand in the street with flags on their heads for identification. Instead, they ARE small children and women, dressed and co-mingling WITH the terrorists. Until the non-terrorists start pushing back, and literally fighting and throwing the terrorists out of their houses, there is absolutely no way to determine the terrorist from the non-terrorist.
As for being unfairly tried by the media, that's already a done deal. The Media and John Murtha have already heard all the evidence they're interested in. The facts completely no longer matter to them. If NCIS turns up that this was legitimate, nothing will be printed about it again. If the soldiers are tried for ANYTHING, the media will be printing it as headline news.
I stick with my original assessment, as unpleasant as it may be:
It's a war, people die. If you don't want people dead, don't send in the Marines.
Where did that one come from? This was in the heat of battle, while explosions were ripping off all around everyone. Bomb explodes, people die, Marines shoot, others die. I'm not seeing any cold, calculated murder -- there wasn't time to plan or even consider seeking revenge (from what I've seen and read).
And "unarmed and unsuspecting civvies?" Again, this has been proven that it's not the case -- the war is against terrorists. They don't stand in the street with flags on their heads for identification. Instead, they ARE small children and women, dressed and co-mingling WITH the terrorists. Until the non-terrorists start pushing back, and literally fighting and throwing the terrorists out of their houses, there is absolutely no way to determine the terrorist from the non-terrorist.
As for being unfairly tried by the media, that's already a done deal. The Media and John Murtha have already heard all the evidence they're interested in. The facts completely no longer matter to them. If NCIS turns up that this was legitimate, nothing will be printed about it again. If the soldiers are tried for ANYTHING, the media will be printing it as headline news.
I stick with my original assessment, as unpleasant as it may be:
It's a war, people die. If you don't want people dead, don't send in the Marines.
Posted by: Ogre at June 01, 2006 07:20 PM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Raven at June 01, 2006 07:49 PM (5mxr7)
6
Oh - I was hoping my latest comment would be up by now. I guess you are still working with the filter issues.
When you get a chance to post my latest response please let me know as I'd like to see your (and your readers) reaction to it. Thanks
When you get a chance to post my latest response please let me know as I'd like to see your (and your readers) reaction to it. Thanks
Posted by: Coyote at June 02, 2006 08:28 AM (SOAEX)
7
OK - where to begin?
You ask me how I can possibly form a view about this being door to door, about the civvies being unarmed, about the event itself being 'in the heat of battle' with 'explosions all around' etc. Let's start with some links then...
How about here first (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/mari-m29.shtml)- an article which describes the door to door executions.
Or possibly here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html) where the Washington Post describes this as "potentially the gravest violation of the law of war by U.S. forces in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq"
Or then of course there is here (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1808360.php) where a former Marine and Vietnam Vet speaks for the Army Times and notes that there was no firefight, no bomb... this was a retalliation in cold blood.
If that's not enough for you there is always here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_iraq_investigations) where a defence official confirms that the attack by the marines was 'unjustified'
I could go on and on with endless links to the sources of my views and opinions, but I think you will get the picture from the above.
I personally think it's pretty tough to argue that going door to door, then herding civvies into a room, binding them and then shooting them is much of a 'firefight'.
As I've said though - I will be first in line to admit I was wrong if all the news papers, mass media, defence officials, legal sites and even the army times is wrong in this instance.
But as I said already - I just don't think they are. It smells like the truth to me, unfortunately.
You ask me how I can possibly form a view about this being door to door, about the civvies being unarmed, about the event itself being 'in the heat of battle' with 'explosions all around' etc. Let's start with some links then...
How about here first (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/mari-m29.shtml)- an article which describes the door to door executions.
Or possibly here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052602069.html) where the Washington Post describes this as "potentially the gravest violation of the law of war by U.S. forces in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq"
Or then of course there is here (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1808360.php) where a former Marine and Vietnam Vet speaks for the Army Times and notes that there was no firefight, no bomb... this was a retalliation in cold blood.
If that's not enough for you there is always here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/marines_iraq_investigations) where a defence official confirms that the attack by the marines was 'unjustified'
I could go on and on with endless links to the sources of my views and opinions, but I think you will get the picture from the above.
I personally think it's pretty tough to argue that going door to door, then herding civvies into a room, binding them and then shooting them is much of a 'firefight'.
As I've said though - I will be first in line to admit I was wrong if all the news papers, mass media, defence officials, legal sites and even the army times is wrong in this instance.
But as I said already - I just don't think they are. It smells like the truth to me, unfortunately.
Posted by: Coyote at June 02, 2006 10:20 AM (acZAM)
8
Link #1 is from the World Socialist Web Site. I'm supposed to believe anything they say? Their primary mission is to destroy the United States, so I cannot for one minute believe they will print anything remotely associated with the truth regarding America, sorry.
The Washington Post doesn't say anything about what happened, just that it's serious. If I right now accused you of murdering 250 people, that would be serious. Wouldn't be true, just serious.
The Army Times claims there was no bomb. Okaaaay. I guess everyone just imagined that Humvee exploding, the Marine dying, and the massive injuries received by some.
The last official was "unnamed." Sorry, but those resources are quite often usless. Sometimes they're right, but more often they're crap because they cannot be verified at all.
So sure, if it is as Vinnie says (see initial post), that's one thing. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing Marines killing people after being attacked. If you don't want people to die, why are there Marines there?
Slightly off the topic, it may be time to get the troops out of there -- because there is no will to win at this point. In other words, if people are going to get upset that Marines are killing people, then get them out of there because people WILL die as long as they're there.
I'm not saying war is a good thing -- I'm saying people die in a war and they always will. If there's no political will to have people die, then stop using the military. And again, if these people are charged, I want to see every pilot who has ever dropped a bomb there charged for "civilian" deaths as well.
The Washington Post doesn't say anything about what happened, just that it's serious. If I right now accused you of murdering 250 people, that would be serious. Wouldn't be true, just serious.
The Army Times claims there was no bomb. Okaaaay. I guess everyone just imagined that Humvee exploding, the Marine dying, and the massive injuries received by some.
The last official was "unnamed." Sorry, but those resources are quite often usless. Sometimes they're right, but more often they're crap because they cannot be verified at all.
So sure, if it is as Vinnie says (see initial post), that's one thing. I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing Marines killing people after being attacked. If you don't want people to die, why are there Marines there?
Slightly off the topic, it may be time to get the troops out of there -- because there is no will to win at this point. In other words, if people are going to get upset that Marines are killing people, then get them out of there because people WILL die as long as they're there.
I'm not saying war is a good thing -- I'm saying people die in a war and they always will. If there's no political will to have people die, then stop using the military. And again, if these people are charged, I want to see every pilot who has ever dropped a bomb there charged for "civilian" deaths as well.
Posted by: Ogre at June 02, 2006 10:27 AM (acZAM)
9
http://www.avalon5.com/index.php/archives/542
It now looks like even more evidence is emerging and more incidents have been found. I suppose people are going to say the BBC are making this up now are they? That the video footage which they have was 'doctored' or 'imagined'?
Like I said before.. it all smells like the truth to me. Sorry Ogre - no disrespect intended to 'honourable' soldiers anywhere, on any side of a conflict - but this is very very far from honourable or battle.
It now looks like even more evidence is emerging and more incidents have been found. I suppose people are going to say the BBC are making this up now are they? That the video footage which they have was 'doctored' or 'imagined'?
Like I said before.. it all smells like the truth to me. Sorry Ogre - no disrespect intended to 'honourable' soldiers anywhere, on any side of a conflict - but this is very very far from honourable or battle.
Posted by: Coyote at June 02, 2006 11:16 AM (SOAEX)
10
Again, thanks for providing the links to the video.
In this one, the video contradicts itself! They show pictures of the dead children and then say, "There's no evidence from these pictures that the children were shot." Then it goes on to show other people who claim they were!
I know it's bad. It's a horrible thing. Death is not nice. It would be nice if no one had to die. But keep in mind -- there's no way to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
If I put you in a room with a fully loaded machine gun and 10 people all with pistols that all look the same, then tell you that 5 of the 10 are going to shoot you, but I'm not telling you which ones, what do you do? I know many people would prefer to not shoot anyone and instead do nothing. Our military, however, is trained to shoot them all, rather than die themselves.
It's bad and it's ugly. It's horrible. It's war. The ONLY way to stop people from dying is to get the troops out -- which I know is what a large number of people do want.
In this one, the video contradicts itself! They show pictures of the dead children and then say, "There's no evidence from these pictures that the children were shot." Then it goes on to show other people who claim they were!
I know it's bad. It's a horrible thing. Death is not nice. It would be nice if no one had to die. But keep in mind -- there's no way to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
If I put you in a room with a fully loaded machine gun and 10 people all with pistols that all look the same, then tell you that 5 of the 10 are going to shoot you, but I'm not telling you which ones, what do you do? I know many people would prefer to not shoot anyone and instead do nothing. Our military, however, is trained to shoot them all, rather than die themselves.
It's bad and it's ugly. It's horrible. It's war. The ONLY way to stop people from dying is to get the troops out -- which I know is what a large number of people do want.
Posted by: Ogre at June 02, 2006 11:31 AM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0143 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0115 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 16 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.