http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14604376.htm

this isnt going to help anything over there.....time to get them out

You can't run a war without stepping on a few toes, those civies might be better off helping us instead of standing around while the bad guys set the traps................


AND, AuntyM... I am at least as qualified to speak on military matters as you are to speak on Presidential matters.
(I knew you were going to say something to reafirm your assumptions, 2 can play.)

Almost forgot, you like these smilie thingies...

Stepping on toes he says.

You're phucked up in the head if you think this is about stepping on toes. I believe the USMC will take the appropriate action if the allegations are true.

If the allegations are true, and you're willing to pass it off as "stepping on toes" then you're one phucked-up individual.

I hope for the good name of the USMC that the allegations are proven false.

I hope so too Dan S. However, if it is another Calley/Mai lai look alike incident. They need to be charged and tried my the military not the media. One atrocity breeds another its seems.

I do not mean it is okay to just go postal on a bunch of bystanders everytime an American is hurt or killed, but if the locals are turning a blind eye on the insurgents activeties, then they must be at least a part of the problem.....no ?

"without stepping on a few toes"
That is truly a very assnine statement. To even equate killing a civilian with "stepping on a few toes" truly shows a lack of concern for the non-combatants killed. It makes the US Marines look no better than Saddam's henchman. If you didn't mean it the way it sounded you should preview and edit your comments before posting them. If this is just 'stepping on a few toes" in your mind, you should take a good long look in mirror. Consider professional help.

AuntyM,
Do you make comments like that to everybody on the street, or did you pick me for some reason ?


You do savvy that I am saying the men in combat need to be able to kill the people who are trying to kill them, I think having their hands tied by strict ROE is much worse on their minds than the act of fighting.........

Oregonian,

Yes, men in combat do crack, and Mai Lai type things do happen. However, being stressed out isn't recognized by law as an excuse for murder.

The bystanding Iraqis are under no obligation to assist the U.S. army. We are an occupation force in fact, if not by intent. Iraqis resent the occupation of their country by foreign invaders, even "victorious" ones, if you can call ours that. It may or may not be in their interest to assist our soldiers. It might help shorten the occupation, but it might also lead to their own deaths by insurgents for aiding the occupiers. There are a lot of no-win alternatives associated with this conflict, mostly created by the U.S.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

O - (and all you others who want to kill insurgents):
My bet is that if foreign forces invaded Oregon(or any other part of the USA) you would suddenly be OK with the idea of an insurgency.

You wouldn't shrink from the DUTY of defending your home would you?

Bring our troops home where they belong and forget about the R.O.E.s !!!!

I posted recently about the posibility of being labeled an insurgent in the future, but I didn't post very well, and it was a flop.


I don't feel qualified to decide whether our troops should be pulled out of the Sand Box or not, but I think anytime they are in harms way they should be allowed to act in their own best interest first, and the best interest of bystanders second.........

Bystanders in a war zone have got to at least be aware of their situation, and make whatever efforts to survive they see fit, some "bystanders" are undoubtably somewhat active on one side or the other in some way....


If there are "Iraqi civilians" watching the IEDs being placed, and then watching our boys enter the kill zone without even trying to give any signal or anything, then it is a fine line or maybe not even that, seperating them from enemy status in reality even if not under the ROE.

You don't understand how scared the average civilian in a guerrilla type war can be. They don't know who to trust either. If the wrong person sees someone speaking to US troops, it can be taken as giving aid and comfort to the occupiers of the homeland. Then they become a casualty.
Read some history of the Struggles in Ireland to understand how things are in areas and neighborhoods considered by the locals to be under occupation by the Brits. Most civilians in these areas where the guerrillas hide out are always afraid of anybody with a weapon. If there is an IED then it is being watched by the bombers. What would you do in their place? You say you have a wife and children. Would you be willing to put them at risk by talking to US troops?

everybody in the whole country is at risk......

If the local people can't get together and figure out what they are willing to stand for, then they are going to be slaves at best, we are there to give them the opportunity to stand up for themselves, if they won't do it, then we are probably going to have to shoot our way out of there, and it really doesn't matter who gets shot if that is the case..........

Chuck E,

Do you understand how scared the Founding Father's must have been while standing up for you and me, we are a Nation of people who have a history of standing up, it is hard for us to comprehend a nation of people who won't stand up....we seem to get ourselves into a lot of trouble trying to help others stand up, 'specially when as a group they don't have the guts/grit, but we error on the side of the people...I'm glad that we give people the benefit of the doubt, but the price sure seems high.

Oregonian, you try hard and you mean well but you have a tenuous grip on reality. Killing civilians is not "stepping on some toes" - it is murder. The Founding Fathers were incredible people and every day we owe them a huge debt of gratitude, but if you read your history, you will find that they were in the minority. Approximately 30% of the colonists supported the Revolution. The biggest group simply didn't care. And a slightly smaller group supported the British.

oregonian- you seem to have missed the point that there wasnt even an IED....it was just murder plain and simple of women and children.......how would you feel if it was your wife and children that were seen to have such little value on their lives that they could be killed for entertainment???????

you logic is dumbfounding- we are there to liberate people yet it doesnt matter if we murder them or not......it isnt the murderers fault? its the victims fault? its scary to think that there are people as shallow as the opinions you have put in this thread....you might as well start your own american taliban

A truly disgusting situation. The term collateral damage comes to mind. It was OK for the British to fry the inhabitants of Cologne and Hamburg with incendaries. And also OK for the U.S. to fry the citizens of Tokyo with incendaries. The fire storms in those cases killed more people than the Bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That doesn't make the murder of civilians acceptable, no matter the provocation. Non combatants are supposed to be just that. A child running at your squad with a grenade in it's hand is an old and abysmal tactic, but the tactic is used. It takes a pretty hardened grunt to do the necessary thing, and then he has to live with it.
I don't know all the details of the latest incident, and therefore will withhold judgement.
Especially considering the political stance of the media and The Honorable Murtha..

it aint about trying to swiftboat murtha......that stuff is getting real old. and the blame the messanger game, where the media is to blame for letting the truth out, is getting old too.....

Not everything we hear from the media is true, I hope we can all agree on that...

If/when noncombatants are used by the insurgents, they are then our enemy even if it doesn't look or sound nice, combat is no place for nice....let's hope for a swift end to combat. Forcing our boys to play nice with combatants who will not play nice is akin to tieing a rock to them and tossing them in the water........

I love the war veterans telling it like it is...

Too fricken John Wayne for my taste!

Are you OK, Lupo? Your responses today are kinda off the wall. Heal.
Whose's trying to swift boat Murtha? And do you really believe everything the media feeds you. I know the answer to that one and you would be the first to jump on it in another venue.

You probably don't like much of T.R either then do you Wailuku ?

The difference is T.R. was not dismissive of the death that war brings.

I'm not dismissive of death either, but I do have a strong preference for the dieing to be done by the other side if there must be any dieing.....very strong preference.

Time for politicly correct thinking is a luxury not always afforded...

As a great republican president once said

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.
Kansas City Star (May 7, 1918)

that is what im talking about regarding trying to discredit the messenger. the media and murtha only know what the military invistigation is telling them......there is no spin here.
oregonian-
you keep making up your own facts and trying to argue them instead of what happened-

there was no IED, there was no complicit civilians that deserved to have their wives and kids killed, there was no child with a grenade walking toward a tank, .....you guys are just making crap up so that you dont have to think about the real situation. it has nothing to do with murtha or the media or anything but soldiers that went nuts and killed a bunch of women and children........

exactly what im talking about!!!!! what sides are there oregonian????? if we are in a war for the hearts and minds of the iraqi people......these people were on our side!!!!!! how in the world does an army defeat an insurgency if actions like this turn iraqi's, that once supported the USA, into insurgents....

this whole war is hell arguement is just crap in this so called war.... it was a pre-emptive war that was decided upon under flase information, we are being told that we are there to liberate, what part of murder is liberation???

how do you not understand that this will put every american soldier at greater risk???????????

if we are just there to steal oil and the iraqi people are the "other side"....then we need to get our soldiers out immediately

"If/when noncombatants are used by the insurgents, they are then our enemy even if it doesn't look or sound nice,"

Pretty dismissive if you ask me! Perhaps I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

The way I interpret it is that if American soldiers are captured and then used by the insurgency as human shields etc... then by your logic they should be considered enemies and no one here should ***** and moan when they die.

Or perhaps it only counts if they are noncombatant Iraqi's?!?!?!

Okay, I'll restate my point again...



I'll use a fake situation for illustration purposes, following so far, not a real scenario unless by coincidence, you don't need to ask where and when.

Let's pretend that the bad guys are set up in a school or hospital and are lobbing shells at U.S. positions (killing our boys), the bad guys are only there to hide behind the civilians (human shield)..........it is my opinion that the bad guys have intensionly put those people at risk and the bad guys are to blame for every scratch or harm which befalls them. Further, I think in that situation we should imediatly kill all the bad guys by the fastest and most efficient means, even though a high percentage of the human shield will also be killed......That is the only way to win a war when the situation gets that bad. IF we operated like that consistantly the people would not so easily allow themselves to be used as a shield because they would associate it with almost certain death, and it only comes because of the bad guys operations. IF we operated in WWII the way many folks want us to operate now our forces would have been obliterated and the world would be much worse for it......

IF the bad guys can be contained and can not do harm from their position, then some strung out "situation" could be played out for the optimum safety of the hostages, if the bad guys are killing us from their position then call in support and plug your ears.

I regret every death in conflict, I wish there would never be another shot fired in anger, but I am living in reality not fantasy, and I'm not getting philosophical about why our boys are in harms way, just saying we owe it to our boys to keep them alive if possible while they are there doing the dirty work.

Spin it around, misinterpret every word, play dumb, and I'll type it up a couple more times, or bring an opposing opinion with some shread of reason to support it, and please don't regurgitate the old one about harming those we are supposed to be helping, I already gave the bad guys the credit for getting them killed, hurt, burned, crippled, dismembered, etc........

"Spin it around, misinterpret every word, play dumb"

Nobody is spinning anything around nor are they playing dumb. Your insinuation on the other hand...

Again, clearly this time. The same scenario this time the "human shields are Americans". Do you believe the same course of action should be taken? If your answer is not yes then I question your stated claim that you value human life!

I'm not talking about a particular instance, just the ROE...

Your presumptions of my experiance are fun to read...

Tell me again about your Presidential experiance before you snipe at our Commander in Chief...

I am sorry that you couldn't comprehend the point illustrated, nor even the fact that it was an illustration to try and make things understandable to the point even the locals here could savvy...maybe I could get my kids to draw a picture with crayons and scan it...

If the enemy has them dead on their feet what do you propose, get another few dozen killed to go along with the hostages, or maybe have Kerry appologize for our position and see if they offer tea ?

I guess when you have no intelligent reply you resort to character assination...at least you are in good company.


You attempt to circumvent any point I make by questioning my military experiance of which you have zero knowledge (not your business), and when I turn your move on you to show you how ridiculous it is, you act like you are above speaking to such a person who would do that !

Ever seen a mirror ?

I'm not advocating breaking the ROE, but maybe we should consider changing them to be mo-betta...

Oregonian,

I'm with Wailuku on this. If you maintain the same position in your pretend example if the human shields are Americans instead of Iraqis, I'll at least give you credit for consistency, but not for valuing human life.

No spin, just what would you do. Your the commander on site, the insurgents are hiding behind American human shields and raining mortars on your men. There are 50 American human shields. You and your men numbered 20 and are down to 16. What cha' gonna' do?

Have a good time with this one.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Eliminate the threat immediatly by the fastest and most reliable means, without a seconds hesitation.

Why add another sole to the 50 hostages already lost ?


Not a fun situation to think about...I'm sure you meant to wink when you said that...

We are all still remembering that this example is in a war, right ?

Cain't argue with book learnin' eh ?

Could be that book learnin' has evolved to be less than it once was...

These boys with the learning are also doing things which you seem to dislike, are there certain times of the day or month when you follow them and other times when you disagree ?

It must be lonely walking around with ALL the answers in times like these...

Gotta agree with the last sentence Aunty M. It will be interesting to find out what happened. It's already tragic, and a budding atrocity if the doubts are not cleared up and aired.
I see I need to clarify: I was referring to your 4:21 PM post Aunty M.

Yes, that's what Salmo asked. How do you intend to eliminate the threat when there are Americans used as human shields?

I'll give you a hint; your first inclination will put you in jail.

Take one of my kids hostage and start shooting at the other and I'd order you a MOAB ASAP........

It's called cutting your losses and it has been proven to win wars, but I guess these days it's not the winning, it's the effort we are supposed to embrace ?

And then you ask how could Kerry have done worse............

Wasn't his big plan for the sand box to fly over there and give a personal apology ? What kind of academy do they teach that in ?

Sure it's understandable that it wasn't right that a few Marines killed a few civilians, but it might have been good. The people that are killing our troops are roadside bombers and suicide bombers so some of those "innocent civilians" might have been the Iraqi's that are placing bombs for our American troops to walk over and detonate them or strap on explosives and kill even more people when they blow themselves up . I mean its not like these Iraqi's are wearing uniforms while they are placing bombs for american convoys to run over, they are just plain looking civilians and if you consider what America has done to "innocent civilians" look no further then the two atomic bombs we placed in Japan in WWII....

They were just Iraqi's Aunty, quit being so sensitive...

Locals DO matter, the locals are the whole point of even being there(wherever there is...)


Since there are women in my family, then I guess I am an expert on menstral cramps and childbirth...

Oregonian,

OK, I give you credit for consistency, but that's it.

OK, now I have to withdraw the consistency credit, since you added that locals do matter. Can't you make up your mind? Get on one side of the street or the other. Or do you mean that locals matter only when it's not convenient or doesn't seem appropriate to kill them? I think you've got something in common with the administration here. You're in a lose-lose quagmire. Time to cut your losses. How many country-men will you sacrifice to do so?

SO if the bad guys in Iraq have 50 hostages, and you still have 16 good men under fire, are you saying you just lay there and get picked off until you are all either dead or captured ?

You do remember that being captured means a certain death, and most likely beheaded and drug through the streets and then burned........you are not dealing with a State, let alone a State which plays by the rules......

IF taking hostages and making a scene meant 100% certain and immediate death, I think that tactic would largely be a thing of the past.....

We HAD a policy against negotiating with terrorists, what ever happened to that ?

Locals always did matter, but not more than our boys......


Maybe you guys think we should be using paintball guns and tazers ?

"Do you understand how scared the Founding Father's must have been while standing up for you and me"
What you are confused about is that our founding fathers had experienced freedom, to a point, had land and other property and, as such, had something tangible to lose. Of course they stood up -they knew the altenative.
The locals in Irag have never experienced the type of freedom we have, are limited in education, don't know who to trust and the only thing they have left to lose is their family and thier own lives.

I asked you this question before -
"You say you have a wife and children. Would you be willing to put them at risk by talking to US troops?"
Put yourself in their shoes - what would you do in their place -Talk to the US troops or mind your own business?

I would like to think I would be of the "Give me liberty or death" crowd, but maybe I would be a coward..........

I've not be in a revolution yet.

It's not a question of being a coward if you have no idea what freedom is.
While I know you may be insulted by this, in my opinion based on your posts, you have not had much life experience outside of your comfortable world. I'd be surprised if you've been out of the country to a real third world country and see the conditions other people live under. Freedom is not even a conceivable concept in a lot of countries. How can you want something if you don't know what it is?

People love to armchair general about Iraq all damn day.

The only people who we should be listening to are the Vets coming back, and the ones that I've spoken to say the whole thing's a crock.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/29/MNGMHGVCEV1.DTL

I am no shrink, not meant dirisively, but I suspect a productive job and an income that made life more than just a paycheck to paycheck existence would go a long way to relieving some of the "stress." Many of those guys have family and the readjustment is difficult. To go from sleep to 150% and ready to kill is difficult and causes problems in the marital bedroom. I know a couple of the guys that made it thru the adjustment process. I used to know another one that didn't

I bet you would see less and less sign up if the rules were changed. Not that I disagree but my suspicions lead me to guess.

Black Widow!

What do they call the person that graduates last of their class in med school?


Doctor.

I didn't mean to imply that a job was a fixall. I suspect that there are some that cannot be fixed they are so damaged. It was just a piece of normalcy that might help.
I have a couple of MD friends that were Reservists. The NROTC put them thru UW. They were activated from civilian life during the Viet Nam fracas. NO alternative, saddle up. That's the way it oughta be.