It was a sad thing to see in the midst of all the success of my comrades in arms. I was immediately reminded of combat fatigue cases I have read about. That young man has been fighting for eight days and he was wounded earlier and came back to the fight.
The poor man he shot, God rest his soul even if he was a terrorist was under our protection as a wounded enemy combatant. He is being judged by God now, that kid will be judged by a Court Martial and he will face swifter justice then he would in our civilian courts.
You see, no matter what the mitigating circumstances he has in his favor, he must be made an example too other soldiers, because soldiers cannot be sloppy, lose focus or let fear take over. He will be held to a standard that is higher then the American public and likely condemned. I am sad for him and I hope his chain of command understands the fault that lies in them.
Tear into this case with your liberal condemnation. You may never understand what you are condemning, but it is a great chance for you to make hay out of a part of this attack which has been a military success of legendary proportions.
I was cheering, now my heart is heavy...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* Honestly, I don't see anything more tragic or grotesque in the shooting of an injured Iraqi combatant feigning death than in the accidental bombing of homes, hospitals, and mosques. When you engage in modern war, part of the calculus is that you intend to kill an acceptable percentage of people in unacceptable ways or for unacceptable reasons, but plan on accepting it in general while punishing it in specific.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
If you think there would be "tearing" then you don't understand this community very well. And "liberal condemnation" - well I don't think it takes a political party to tell you that this is a tragedy for everyone involved.
There are many people who don't support the war here. There are many who believe that the army has tarnished its image with the events in Iraq. I for one worry that we put guns in the hands of people like our resident Bean Counter, but my faith is restored by people like Kwea and Black Fox.
This incident is not a damning indictment of the military or what's happening in Iraq, it's not a political statement.
Someone is dead who should've been protected, killed by someone who probably also needed better looking after. The only anger I feel is at the pointlessness of it all.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Tom, I don't think the story said he was faking death. I think he was one of the injured Iraqis who had been left for pick-up, and our forces mistakenly thought the mosque had been reoccupied... and the solider made a mistake.
The only thing I would question is why a solider who had been shot in the face the day before was returned to the front lines. Regardless of if he was physically able, you would think he might not be mentally fit for duty yet. Other than that... it was a bad thing. bad things happen in war. I don't condem this any more than I condem us being there in the first place.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
When you start to condemn people for disagreeing with you, and for expressing that disagreement, you forget what you are fighting for--in fact, you shame it--and you forget what makes America special.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
ElJay, in the article it said the Marine said, "He's f***ing faking he's dead. He faking he's f***ing dead." I think that is what Tom was talking about.
What this video immediately brought to my mind was Fahrenheit 9/11 Remember that scene with the soldiers who were a little over excited about their upcoming mission? The inapropriate song they were singing? I don't even remewmber what it was, but I remember thinking, man, that just looks really, really bad.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Well I am glad to see this, I was afraid that the American Left would go up in flames, you actually give me hope for this man to receive fair treatment at least at home. Your fairness and reasonableness makes me feel less defensive about posting here.
I might have been a little cranky, got a flat on my cab this afternoon and had to wait four hours for the maintenance support truck to (HMS) to show up and change it. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Kayla, what I was trying to say is that the story didn't say that the man actually was faking being dead, just that that was what the solider apparently thought, presumably from the bad information that the mosque had been retaken. Tom's post seems to imply that he thought the man was in fact faking death, whereas I think it was saying he was injured and out of it, and not trying to "put one over" on our troops.
In short, I knew what Tom was talking about, but I got a different sense from the article than he did.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Jar Head -- For the record, I do think he should be court marshelled. While it was probably an error in judgement, it was certainly an error. I don't know what the various things they can charge him for are. Sticking with civilian definitions, from the scant information we have I would not call it intentional murder, but I would think it would be more than manslaughter. The definitions don't fit.
Anyway, I wouldn't call it a war crime... but while I admit that mistakes are made I also think that people have to take the consequences for their mistakes. I believe a court marshell serves the same purpose as a trial.. finding out the truth and assigning responsibility, right? So I hope that its purpose is carried out... and that it is not swept under the rug, or that we don't go too far in the other direction and make an example out of a mistake.
[ November 15, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It was a terrible event, I hope I have some hair left when I get back it looks like the stress level is off the charts. They are reasonable people here, most times too reasonable.
BC
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: Honestly, I don't see anything more tragic or grotesque in the shooting of an injured Iraqi combatant feigning death than in the accidental bombing of homes, hospitals, and mosques.
If the bombing is an accident, then there was no intention to cause death. Shooting someone intentionally obviously implies knowledge of killing . The proximity of the people who are detinating the bomb obviously isn't very close. When shooting another soldier, proximity is near adjacent, and the physical results of being shot are clearly shown.
quote: "The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said.
How can consider the two to be the same?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So, it's ok, as long as you don't have to see how awful it is? What a relief.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
ElJay, okay. I understand what you are saying now. My bad.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
quote: So, it's ok, as long as you don't have to see how awful it is? What a relief.
That's not the point. These bombings in this hypothetical situation were accidental, so it's neither ok nor not ok. But shooting someone in the head, at least to me, is NOT ok.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: If the bombing is an accident, then there was no intention to cause death. Shooting someone intentionally obviously implies knowledge of killing . The proximity of the people who are detinating the bomb obviously isn't very close. When shooting another soldier, proximity is near adjacent, and the physical results of being shot are clearly shown.
I submit that one of the main purposes of bombing is to cause death. We know when we bomb that there is a decent chance that it will hit a home, a hospital, or a mosque. We decided that it was worth that chance. How is that any less grotesque?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
np, Jar Head. I understand all too well about crankiness: I'm kinda cranky myself, because I'm still at work. Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
It's accidental!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: It's accidental!
Not really. They pretty much calculate the number of civilian deaths before they do anything. It's part of the planning. Although, considering the incredible lack of planning in this war, maybe Bush can use the "it was an accident" thing and get away with it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So when does it stop being accidental? When there's a 50% chance it will hit a civilan? 60%? When? This hasn't just happened once, it happens multiple times. I'm not arguing it's worse than the shooting, but I think it's just as bad.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think they drop many bombs by accident. It may be accidental that they kill civilians instead of soliders, but the intent of killing was still there.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I was just considering a hypothetical accidental situation Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: *shrug* Honestly, I don't see anything more tragic or grotesque in the shooting of an injured Iraqi combatant feigning death than in the accidental bombing of homes, hospitals, and mosques. When you engage in modern war, part of the calculus is that you intend to kill an acceptable percentage of people in unacceptable ways or for unacceptable reasons, but plan on accepting it in general while punishing it in specific.
All war is crime, no matter who dies.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
There was what I expected. Someone who can say something like this. All war is crime...
With violence reminiscent of Jinjus Kahn..(yes I know it is Genghis, you know who I am referring too) War is not crime, crime is a violation of law, our law allows for war. War has been the most powerful political tool in the history of history, pretty foolish to toss out the best tool you have because some people don't have the stomach for it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't agree that all war is crime.
Now, whether or not it is the most powerful political tool is an interesting concept to discuss--let's not take it for granted!
I think that war is definitely an indication of a failure somewhere along the line, but failures can come from all sorts of places, and I wouldn't agree that war is never necessary.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Jar Head, do you realize that you are reacting in the exact same way you claim you expected us to, just in the opposite direction? It seems almost like you are disappointed that we are behaving rationally, so you jump on any chance to see irrationality.
You also are reading a lot into his comment that may or may not have been there. Just because someone feels all war is crime does not mean he doesn't have the stomach for it, or acknowledge it as a useful and sometimes necessary tool. I'm not saying that's the case here... I don't know, and you don't either. You are attacking and ridiculing without reason. This could be a philosophical statement, a rationalization, or indeed the condemation you seem to think it is. But when your reaction to it is knee-jerk negative, your post comes across looking ill-considered and uninformed.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:The report said the Marine had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier.
What moron put that Marine back into circulation? Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Well I may still bill a bit cranky, spoiling for a fight after that flat... But it seemed that the statement was a pretty clear position, if an invalid one. Is it customary here to allow such things to just hang out there in all there glaring ignorance unopposed? How then do you know where people stand? It seems that I have seen positions assaulted fairly often that were much more insightful then this one. Or is this a person we all 'Know about' who we give a pass for some mental deficiency. I never got that list if there is one... Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Went up twice! Very Bad Day
[ November 16, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Jar Head ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
If I may presume to use myself as an example, I disagreed with what the statement seemed to me to be saying, but not by ridiculing it and suggesting it was exemplary of the silliness I expected to see on this forum.
(I apologize if you take this as condescending. It is not my intention to be condescending, but you seem to be perplexed by the reaction, and you also seem to genuinely want to know what the standard for posts is here. That makes you seem like a potentially good addition to the mix here, and so I want to try to help you get the feel of the place, if I may.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Is it customary here to allow such things to just hang out there in all there glaring ignorance unopposed?
Nope. But it's customary, particularly in serious discussion threads (as opposed to fluff threads) to respectfully address your concerns with someone's position instead of ridiculing and demeaning them. That may have not been your intent, but with your use of the " " icon and your comments calling him foolish and not having the stomach for war that's how it came across, to me me anyhow.
In this case, I don't think his comment is clear. I would expect someone who disagreed with it to state why they disagreed with it, or to ask for clarification. And I would expect them to listen to any responses respectfully and to be open to the fact that not everyone will agree with them and that the world isn't black and white. Many of us here deal in a wide variety of shades of gray.
Edit 'cause of Icarus's excellent post: I also think you will be a wonderful addition to the forum, Jar Head, particularly because of your range of experiences that not many of us share. And I realize that we may come across as kinda namby-pamby... but I think you'll find we just are inordinantly fond of civil discussion, and when someone comes in guns a-blazin' without taking the time to get a feel for the forum we tend to snap a little. I appreciate that you are asking questions. And as you get to know us, you'll get to know who is maybe young and doesn't have the same life-experience as others, and as such is kindly questioned or corrected instead of smacked-down, and who knows exactly what they're saying and is going for a response, and so it's only fair to let them have one.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
I know, it was pretty hard core, I do not know the ROE but usually if you are still functional (effective) you get back in the fight. He may have been pay back bent, It is a tough call, being mad can be an asset in a fight as has been demonstrated elsewhere tonight. I wonder what medication he was given and if he was taking pep pills to keep alert.
Darn it I cannot find an appropriate Greamlin... Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:But it seemed that the statement was a pretty clear position, if an invalid one. Is it customary here to allow such things to just hang out there in all there glaring ignorance unopposed? How then do you know where people stand?
You could say, "Hey, could you clarify your position?"
edit: I guess it was covered while I took two milliseconds to make my own post. Stupid, sexy, fast El Jay.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Okay I will try to be nice. Okay you mammas boy..
right nice...Um.. Under what law would you say the 'crime' of war falls?
Respectfully
LCPL Bryant James E
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, Jar Head, I like you.
And ralphie called me sexy! It's like a rite of passage!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ralphie didn't call me sexy . . . Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"He may have been pay back bent..."
I'm going to give the Marine the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not shoot anyone for pay back. The Marine might've been a bit jumpy after getting shot in the face. Totally understandable.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: Ralphie didn't call me sexy . . .
Does it help that I was thinking it?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Icky, we all know Ralphie likes you. But I started after she pretty much left, so it's kinda like your older brother's cute best friend saying "Hey, you're kinda cool for a kid." Um, except you probably won't empathize with the older brother's friend part.
Edit: SEE?!?!?!
[ November 16, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
I want to make a comment on this statement:
quote: All war is crime, no matter who dies.
First, I want to say that I'm not sure 100% I agree, but that I can't dismiss it out of hand.
Here's what this made me think of. After September 11, 2001 we went to Afghanistan. The Onion had a sidebar article on the front page (I read the electronic version) that had a deadline "God clarifies the meaning of 'Thou Shall Not Kill'"...
So if we assume for a minute that I believe any breaking of the 10 commandments is a 'crime' (in a sense greater than simply breaking the rul;es made by man) then I would consider war, the entire purpose of which is to kill, as a crime. Thus, I would say all war is a crime..
What I really think: I think that war is one of those things I classify as a 'necessary evil'. I think it's often avoidable and should be an absolute last resort, but I don't think it's always the result of a failure... sometimes it might be the only way to solve the issue.
well, that’s my $.02 (upon review of the post length, maybe it's my $.20)
-me
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote:With violence reminiscent of Jinjus Kahn..(yes I know it is Genghis, you know who I am referring too) War is not crime, crime is a violation of law, our law allows for war. War has been the most powerful political tool in the history of history, pretty foolish to toss out the best tool you have because some people don't have the stomach for it.
All war is crime. Yet, what I didnt say is that it is necessary. The act itself is wrong, but there times when it is necessary. WWII is the perfect example. I think we can compare war, favorably, to self-defense. While the act of killing someone is wrong, you may do so if your life is in Jeopardy. In the same manner, we certainly can defend ourselves, but we cannot do it arbitrarily because all war is crime.
Furthermore, thats why I find the term "war crimes" completely hypocritical. Your fighting killing innocent people and people who are trying to kill you, and you want there to be rules to murder? I find that hilarious at best.
To be honest, I didnt mean to offend anyone either. I say that becuase it got a little hostile! Be nice! We are just in disagreement and thats cool!
P.S Philosophically speaking, its not an invalid argument. It may be unsound (I dont think so) but thats all. And I do have the stomach for war, we simply must realize that we are employing an evil to get rid of a bigger evil. Necessary evils are like that. That is all. Continue talking.
[ November 16, 2004, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The error in judgement occurred earlier and at a higher level. Those POWs should have been placed into the custody of other soldiers or evacuated to detention centers before the capturing group of soldiers gave up custody. Since that wasn't done, commanders should have made it very clear that disarmed&disabled prisoners were in the mosque, instead of just telling soldiers that they were going into a "possibly reoccupied enemy stronghold". When the enemy is known to stage suicide attacks, it is foolish to expect a soldier to stand around and wait to see if an expected-to-be-dead-but-instead-quite-alive enemy triggers a bomb.
BTW -- It was the liberal left and only a handful of conservatives like Vietnam vet JohnMcCain who cared about the soldiers after that war. Congressional Republicans did their damndest to block research into the effects of AgentOrange/etc and research&treatment of PostTraumaticStressDisorder; as well as to reduce and/or to cutoff veterans benefits, including access to VA hospitals. Most conservatives and supposed patriotic fraternal organizations like the American Legion and VFW did their damnedest to make Vietnam vets feel like dog droppings found underneath a boot "for losing the war." Which is why organizations like the VietnamVeteransAssociation came into being.
And it is the same for this war. The bloody majority of Republicans have tried to tax USsoldiers for combat pay, but the Democrats and a handful of Republicans blocked that measure. The Republican majority has succeeded in cutting VA hospital funding by a billion dollars in the yearly appropriations bill.
[ November 16, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So if we assume for a minute that I believe any breaking of the 10 commandments is a 'crime' (in a sense greater than simply breaking the rul;es made by man) then I would consider war, the entire purpose of which is to kill, as a crime. Thus, I would say all war is a crime.
Except that the commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill", but should really be translated "Thou shalt not murder."
Killing and murdering are two different things. There are times when killing someone is not a crime. If an assailant opens fire on a police officer and the officer shoots and kills him, that isn't a crime. If a person breaks into my house and grabs for one of my children with a knife in his hand, showing clear intent to kill or harm my kids, and I shoot him - it's not a crime. There are many more examples that could be shown.
Certain actions taken during war may be criminal (sounds like this case may be one of them) but that doesn't mean waging war itself is a crime.
Here are my thoughts on the matter, FWIW.
I'm saddened at what happened, I'm upset that one of our soldiers did something so wrong as to shoot and kill and unarmed, injured person.
I am pleased to see the military reacting properly to it - this soldier will be court marshalled and he will be tried under the UCMJ, which is exactly what should happen.
I am worried that the focus of what has happened all these days in Fallujah will now be on this one incident - this is what people will talk about when Fallujah is mentioned. Ignored will be the brave fighting done by our men, in near impossible circumstances. Going house to house, building to building, fighting an enemy that dresses exactly like the civilian population, - that's a heck of a situation to be in. I think our soldiers have done a great job under tremendous pressue over there, and I hope that is remembered and appreciated.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
So, I guess the trick becomes to figure out which of the world's wars God is personally sanctioning.
[ November 16, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Luckily, since I don't believe in the Christian God, I can hold myself to a higher standard of behavior. j/k
Seriously, though, I think ALL killing is to be regretted -- a sin, if you will -- regardless of the motivation or need. That we occasionally need to do something we should deeply regret because the consequences of not doing it appear worse does not mean that it doing it is any less wrong; it's STILL wrong, and we should still regret it deeply, and we will still need to repent for it even if we felt it was justified.
The greatest evil of war is not that it results in death; it's that it makes inflicting death seem like the best option out there.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I never said it wasn't to be regretted - personally I abhor any type of killing (anti-death penalty, remember?) and nothing upsets me more than the thought of sending young men and women into places like Fallujah.
No one here, least of all me, is trying to suggest that war is ever a good thing or that killing people is something we should rejoice over.
However, calling all soldiers murderers or saying that all war is a crime is inappropriate, since there are cases when killing another human being, though regrettable, is not murder.
It doesn't have anything to do with what wars God "sanctions" it has to do with the act itself, and the intent. If you shoot someone because they are threatening your home or your family or your life, that isn't murder. If you shoot that person because you don't like them or because they worship differently than you do, that is murder.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Whereas I consider both acts murder, and merely see more justification for the former.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
What the soldier did was wrong in the greater context but I feel there were a huge number of mitigating circumstances.
The Marine had been in protracted house to house combat, possibly the most stressful situation a person could be in. The Marine had been wounded, lightly, and returned to duty and back into the thick of the fight. He had been sent back to a mosque that had been cleared the day before and then apparently had to be re-cleared.
Also, there have been tons of booby traps in the area, including some where explosives were placed under dead or dying bodies. In addition, there have been reports of the insurgents using white surrender flags to lure combatants into killing zones.
The soldier apparently thought the man was faking either death or incapacity. Given the surrounding situation, prior experiences in the fighting, and the probable warnings he and his unit had been given about fake surrenders and booby-trapped bodies, he made a decision. He killed the man. Only after the fact could they tell for certain that the man was no threat.
Also, this wasn't an innocent civilian, but an insurgent that had been wounded in the fighting the day before. An insurgent who had knowingly and willingly decided to fight within a mosque. And he should have been removed from the mosque the day before when it was first cleared.
The Marine made a wrong decision, yes. But everything he had experienced leading up to it and the situation of that day had led him to make that decision. Was this murder? No. Manslaughter at the most.
And had the situation been the other way around -- the insurgent had been faking incapacity and instead waiting to trigger an explosive -- the Marine, his fellow soldiers and most likely that camera crew, would all be injured or dead.
His decision proved to be wrong in the end, but if he had been right, inactivity could have been catastrophic.
This man will carry with him that moment for the rest of his life, it will weigh heavy on his soul. But I don't feel it is necessary for him to receive additional punishment for his actions.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Belle, I'm sure you've given your position on the war in Iraq elsewhere, but I can't remember seeing it. Given what you just said about intent, do you believe that we were justified in invading Iraq, and if so why? I didn't see them threatening our homes or our families in any way... If you believe that they had WMD and were linked to terrorists and were going to provide said terrorists with said WMDs you could make a case for threat... but to go with your example, the intruder didn't break into your house and hold a knife to your child's neck, they were maybe loitering on the next street and you thought you saw something in their pocket. (I'm trying not to make this personally accusatory, but to be clear, since I have to leave for work soon and won't be around to clarify my question.)
Anyway... I'm not arguing that getting rid of Hussain wasn't a good thing, and certainly not that our soliders shouldn't be working to dispel the resistance now that we're there. I'm questioning how you feel about us being there in the first place... invading, if you'll allow it... with no direct provocation.
Edit: I also don't think you can say we were enforcing UN edicts when the UN specifically told us they didn't want us to invade but wanted to continue inspections.
[ November 16, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
Court-martialed.
I am sorry, I tried to resist the urge to stickle, but I failed.
As a verb, court-martial gets a hyphen, and the past tense is "martialed." There is some disagreement on one "L" or two (e.g. martialled), but the Associated Press Stylebook says one.
This message brought to you by the office of the Hatrack Sticklers' Society Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I3, I knew I was spelling it wrong, and I was too lazy to look it up. So thank you. Ya want me to go back and fix it now? Or would that make your post look silly?
Posted by Intelligence3 (Member # 6944) on :
Leave it, we'll use it as an instructive case study for future generations. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ooooh, it will go well with my immoral pro-sexual freedom rant in the other thread. Look kids! Have premarital sex and you won't be able to spell! Since they're both concerned with future generations and all that.
[ November 16, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I also don't think you can say we were enforcing UN edicts when the UN specifically told us they didn't want us to invade but wanted to continue inspections.
The UN did NOT tell us it didn't want us to invade. Countries in the UN told us they didn't want us to invade. People who worked for the UN told us they didn't want us to invade. The UN did not.
The UN acts in a body (two bodies, actually - the general assembly and the security council). For sure, the security council did not tell "us they didn't want us to invade." At least at the time of the invasion, the General Assembly had not yet "told us they didn't want us to invade."
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
On the other hand, they didn't ask us to go in there either.
[ November 16, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Fair enough. How about "I also don't think you can say we were enforcing UN edicts when we did not have a UN mandate to do so?" I'll leave out the wanting to continue inspections part, since while I believe it to be true I don't have time to find a reference. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's fair. I disagree with your conclusion, but it's fair. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think I stated a conclusion, did I? My question is how Belle feels about the war in Iraq given her stated beliefs about when killing is appropriate.
Obviously, everyone knows I'm on the liberal side of the forum, and if they didn't my wording of my question would give it away. But my personal primary objection to the war is that I believe force should be used in self- or family- defense, not pre-emptively. Belle's stated position seems very similar to the type of situation where I would feel the use of violence is called for. So maybe she has a position on the war that I could relate to better than most. *shrug* Looking for enlightenment. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're conclusion that we weren't enforcing UN edicts - I thought that was pretty clear.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ah, okay.
Then a question for you: How is our enforcing UN edicts without a UN mandate or request different from vigilante justice?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just saw the video on CNN-- the soldiers did not seem to be behaving in a way that would lead me (civilian, barely been in a fist-fight ever) to believe that they believed there was a threat to them.
Their attitude seemed entirely too casual.
I admit that I know little of the attitude appropriate for war.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There have been several legal analyses that suggest we did have a mandate deriving out of several UN resolutions.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Are there also legal analyses that suggest we did not? That you've come across, of course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course there are. That's why it's an issue reasonable people can disagree on.
Dagonee
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
This is why some people don't like arguing with you. But I think it's fun. Back to work now!
[ November 16, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If Al Qaeda blows up the Pentagon and then claims it was enforcing U.N. edicts against human rights abuses Al Qaeda alleges the U.S. has done, does that make it so, even if the U.N. never found Americans guilty of human rights abuses and never said blowing up foreign military bases are an appropriate response to human rights abuses?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd say not. If you linked a detailed legal analysis saying otherwise with reference to specific authority including treaties, international case law, and UN resolutions, as I have done at least 3 times in the last year with respect to the legality of the invasion, I might change my mind.
But for some reason a one sentence comparison ignoring the distinguishing characteristics between the two situations doesn't get past my BS threshold.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
It's like a rite of passage!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I3, I knew I was spelling it wrong, and I was too lazy to look it up. So thank you. Ya want me to go back and fix it now? Or would that make your post look silly?
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
This is why some people don't like arguing with you. But I think it's fun.