posted
Not to drag in completely unrelated matters, Blayne, but this sort of thing is exactly what got you banned: Not so much the original tasteless and idiotic joke, but the total stonewalling refusal to man up and admit that you might have been in the wrong.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Firstly that the military has actually been successfully embarrassed by a wiki of all things and apparently tyrant style tried to suppress it is inherently hilarious.
Secondly militaries shooting unarmed civilians for kicks and making bond one liners is also inherently hilarious, made funnier by the Team America World Police doing it.
Thirdly anything in real life that begins to resemble grand theft auto on crack is inherently funny as well.
Whether or not others share my mirth is also what makes this funnier imagining your shocked horrified faces.
Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So wait, how many of them had cameras then?
One has a long-range lens, one has a camera, confused for a AK-46 and RPG respectively. I don't see any more weapons although some US outlets have claimed to see one AK-47 that I haven't seen confirmed.
quote: Guy carrying it is also peeking around the corner in a very weird and disconcerting way...
He was taking a photo, they actually have that photo online. If he seems cautious and nervous, thats probably because the US military as of this point already has a reputation for shooting civilians (and journalists for that matter).
quote: ... an example of how the US Military are a bunch of psychopathic murderers, and I just don't see that here at all.
You don't see that. You hear it, loud and clear.
Towards the beginning of the video at around the 3:45ish mark you can see two men carrying AKs who are walking well behind the journalists. There is the front group of four people, two of whom are carrying cameras and are the journalists mentioned in the video. There is also a group of four or five people behind that group, and two of them are carrying long objects that look a lot like weapons. Links:hereand here. Later they try and catch up with them. I'm not saying that this excuses the military's actions here but let's give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think it would be unreasonable to propose that the area where this incident occurred may have been some sort of bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents. I also don't think that it would be unreasonable to speculate that the two journalists mentioned in the clip were in the area looking for photos or whatever, and perhaps had a few bodyguards with them for protection. Now, assuming that the two men I mentioned earlier are indeed carrying AKs and that the area that these men are in is indeed a bad neighborhood, then you have two men carrying what look like AKs, and two people nearby carrying unidentified long black objects in a bad neighborhood. I'm not sure what the rules of engagement for this situation are (I'm pretty sure that they were broken in this case anyways), but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
EDIT: Didn't read the msnbc link that stated that these men were headed to an area of battle. That only strengthens my point that these men could easily have been mistaken for insurgents.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not to drag in completely unrelated matters, Blayne, but this sort of thing is exactly what got you banned: Not so much the original tasteless and idiotic joke, but the total stonewalling refusal to man up and admit that you might have been in the wrong.
Except I did admit I was in the wrong and once again you completely miss the context of me getting insulted afterwards contributing to my supposed stonewalling.
"Dude not funny" is constructive calling me a moron ain't and is the reason why I lashed out at carillon for calling me an asshole for not doing anything wrong.
Do you have this magic 'blayne getting insulted' filter that you wear all the time to selectively avoid having to deal with the useless goddamn crap I deal with on a daily basis that you ignore every goddamn time because it suits you?
IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, I should have known better than to try engaging with you when you were already in turtle mode. Never mind.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: EDIT: Didn't read the msnbc link that stated that these men were headed to an area of battle. That only strengthens my point that these men could easily have been mistaken for insurgents.
I don't really disagree with that. From the little information I've seen, the initial conclusion seems reasonable.
The conduct afterwards and the coverup seem a lot worse to me than the initial attack.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents.
The city has a population of 7.5 million. If the city is anything like a bad neighbourhood in the US, there is probably one gun per person. It is just as reasonable to assume that they were normal Iraqi citizens hanging out around home (and thats assuming that diagram is correct, which I really don't see as being conclusive as opposed to the aforementioned military investigations which didn't find anything).
quote: ... but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
Perhaps, but if I flew around a bad neighbourhood in the US randomly bombarding people that I thought had guns (and very well might), I don't think I'd be getting the benefit of the doubt even if I was in the military.
The van I find especially dubious.
But as I said before, the cover-up and the fact that cover-ups are still going on are more troublesome to me (and perhaps the fact that this is hardly the first photojournalist killed due to a camera being mistaken for a RPG is severely biasing coverage toward embedded "journalists").
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
I was going to post something like this. Insofar as we want an effective armed forces (which I do), they need to be trained to have a certain amount of disassociation in order to function. I am sure this is the fallout from the study (and follow-on studies afterward) that some significant number of soldiers on WWII battlefields never pulled the trigger during battle, on both sides.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, I should have known better than to try engaging with you when you were already in turtle mode. Never mind.
If you want to engage me constructively answering my emails in a timely fashion and politely discussing the issue or alternatives to the issue like adults would be a great way to start, I've accepting my fate in regards to the Hoi2 game and ostensibly in the CK game but just coming out here and posting this seems more like rubbing salt in the wound rather then actually trying to help me deal with my anger issues.
Your replies to me in private correspondence have not been particularly encouraging that any changes from me would actually change any of the situations I care about and also do not seem like its possible to civilly discuss any issue and reach some or any kind of middle ground.
You have my email if you wish to continue the discussion to see if we can get something or anything resolved, "I'll think about it" and similar 1 sentence replies doesn't make a conversation.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's true, the reason being that you don't want a conversation, you want to be told that all your demands will be obeyed. I don't really feel like gratifying you on that point, so I keep the interaction to a minimum. This also has the happy side effect of minimising the annoyance-inducing spam in my inbox.
To answer your underlying question, however: I have consulted some of the other players and there is cautious agreement that you could be an asset to the game if you played as an Immortal. (Under the constraint, naturally, that you remain polite.) There's a few people whose feedback I still await.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, to an extent, all combat soldiers need to develop a little (hopefully) temporary sociopathy. How else could one stand it at all?
I believe this is true and I think some of the training for modern military is designed to achieve this. To put it in more narrow terms, they try to condition soldiers to be willing to shoot other humans, since in past wars it was something many soldiers couldn't bring themselves to do, even if they were under fire themselves.
Of course being hundreds of yards away, so you can't hear any screams or really see the gore probably helps in this regard as well.
The distance, detachment, and easy superiority (of force) exemplified by that video are really disturbing and frightening.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... bad neighborhood or a place where those soldiers have encountered insurgents before. In that case, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the men carrying AKs are indeed insurgents.
The city has a population of 7.5 million. If the city is anything like a bad neighbourhood in the US, there is probably one gun per person. It is just as reasonable to assume that they were normal Iraqi citizens hanging out around home (and thats assuming that diagram is correct, which I really don't see as being conclusive as opposed to the aforementioned military investigations which didn't find anything).
quote: ... but looking at this as objectively as possible I think that this may simply have been a case of mistaken identity, albeit a very tragic one.
Perhaps, but if I flew around a bad neighbourhood in the US randomly bombarding people that I thought had guns (and very well might), I don't think I'd be getting the benefit of the doubt even if I was in the military.
The van I find especially dubious.
But as I said before, the cover-up and the fact that cover-ups are still going on are more troublesome to me (and perhaps the fact that this is hardly the first photojournalist killed due to a camera being mistaken for a RPG is severely biasing coverage toward embedded "journalists").
I think you're missing the point that these guys weren't just in a bad neighborhood, but that they were heading to a battle taking place and several of them were or appeared to be armed. That doesn't excuse anything, but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents. The shooting of the van is disturbing. The cover-up is disturbing. But as far as the initial engagement I'm on the fence.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
"There are" and its contraction sound correct to my ear. "There is" does not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
"There are" and its contraction sound correct to my ear. "There is" does not.
I agree about "There are" sounding correct, but the contraction feels weird. I think it's the way it tries to make you separate two 'r' sounds without any intervening vowel. You almost have to pronounce it "Therar", a very short 'a' sound indicating the contraction by negating it, which annoys me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. This may be a situation where the contraction, while correct, isn't helpful and shouldn't be used.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents.
Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
The voice-over on the tapes hardly indicates that they were being careful and were looking for excuses to kill. Also, as additional information on the reporting of that day, they were shooting at journalists again just an hour after the incident.
quote: “When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier,” said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
“They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Best advice on hatrack to date
blayne, you're a spergbabby, go be babby somewhere else.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: ... but what I am trying to say is that they very well could have mistaken the journalists and their group to be insurgents.
Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
The voice-over on the tapes hardly indicates that they were being careful and were looking for excuses to kill. Also, as additional information on the reporting of that day, they were shooting at journalists again just an hour after the incident.
quote: “When we reached the spot where Namir was killed, the people told us that two journalists had been killed in an air attack an hour earlier,” said Ahmad Sahib, the Agence France-Presse photographer, who had been traveling in a car several blocks behind Mr. Noor-Eldeen but was delayed by the chaos in the area. He said he was in touch with Mr. Noor-Eldeen by cellphone until his colleague was killed.
“They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,” Mr. Sahib said. “It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.”
Yeah from what I'm gathering, after they initially engaged the group of people they automatically decided to light up anybody who came near the area. Pretty awful stuff anyway you look at it I guess.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, of course they made a mistake, I'm not missing that at all (or that the claim is that they were headed for a battle). What I'm also suggesting is that they were fighting in an urban area, filled with civilians and the occasional journalists and they should have been much more careful.
Well. The thing is, if they had taken an extra five seconds to ensure that those really were guns, and in fact the people on the ground had been enemy troops, then they would (with high probability) have been shot at and possibly killed. Is that really a reasonable standard for us to demand? It's true that these are soldiers who have chosen to put on the uniform and take risks in what they see as the service of their country; but we usually consider it fair enough when they act so as to minimise the risk. And if the answer is "yes, they should have risked their lives that extra bit for the cause", consider that this might just as well apply to the journalists, who after all didn't absolutely have to be in a war zone and running to the sound of the guns.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hum. Not to change the subject completely, but: I just used the phrase "There's a few people". Expanding the contraction this becomes "There is a few people", which is clearly bad grammar. But the contraction "There're a few people" also looks wrong to the eye and rings wrong in my ear. Should I conclude that it's simply a bad idea to use a contraction in these circumstances, or that "there's" is no longer a contraction, but a special form which does not necessarily indicate the number of its referent? What do you think?
In formal speech and writing, "there is" or "there's" with a following plural noun is still considered incorrect, but it's very common in speech and less formal writing. Note that this is, I believe, the only construction in English where a verb agrees with a following noun rather than a preceding one in a declarative sentence. My opinion is that it will eventually become a standard fixed phrase that doesn't agree with the following noun, somewhat like French "il y a" or German "es gibt."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Misha McBride: Go be edgy~ somewhere else. This isn't the place for you to be all :smug: about how very jaded you are because you've Seen Things On The Internet. SomethingAwful has several active threads about this where you can go and chortle about this with the rest of the sperglords. I don't even know why you're here, you're obviously too cool for Hatrack.
Best advice on hatrack to date
blayne, you're a spergbabby, go be babby somewhere else.
posted
Seriously, enough about Blayne being an Internet Tough Guy. This story isn't interesting enough without that?
I'm particularly disturbed by how intelligence services harassed the Wikileaks staff. The police state is growing way too powerful... and like a ratchet, it never moves backward.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
People honestly have nothing better to talk about then jump onto a train wreck.
IP: Logged |
posted
I would point out you just jumped on your own train wreck (and I couldn't resist a comment).
Yes Lalo, I'm not sure which part of this story I'm more worried about. The event itself, or the cover up that has followed.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... consider that this might just as well apply to the journalists, who after all didn't absolutely have to be in a war zone and running to the sound of the guns.
As of 2007 the whole country is a war zone and not only were they Reuters employees but the country is their home. And even if we accept the fractional equivalency between the risks that a reporter accepts and military duty to protect civilians, the random civilians around, nor the driver, or his children have (not) accepted those risks.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Is that really a reasonable standard for us to demand?
Absolutely, otherwise they might as well pack up and go home. The goal at that stage was to protect the Iraqi population and win hearts and minds.
As unfortunate as the loss of two pilots might be, this does not work against that goal. On the other hand, when they screw up as in this case, the effect is the radicalisation of the relatives and friends of those killed and the creation of very effective propaganda (not even propaganda really, its the truth) and recruiting material for both the insurgency and international terrorism. (Plus the direct fact that we now have eight dead civilians versus two soldiers)
It is absolutely a tough thing to demand, but half-assing it in this case actually makes it worse than going to either extreme. If you want to win hearts and minds, either go big or go home.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
That doesn't work: A war you win can't be used this way, because the officers will very reasonably point out that hey, they won, so what's your bitch? And a war you lose is a bad idea any way you look at it. That's aside from the other costs of war, of course, which are probably much larger (at least for a big, well-protected state like the US) than the costs of having a few months' worth of ramp-up time in a big war, a la the US in WWII. The US can accept a Kasserine Pass a few times in a century; but experientally it's not doing well with a Vietnam, a couple of small colonial wars, and some minor interventions over the course of a generation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I agree with kmbboots. A large portion of my main post from page 1 was about the same thing. Only less succinct.
We shouldn't be there. We shouldn't have ever gone there. Heck, even Bush Senior's people knew that.
Unfortunately we are and I don't think simply packing up and leaving is such a good idea either.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then again, this was a good opportunity to use the lessons of this war to restructure the military and to trim it of these embarrassments before the cycle of complacency and military readiness degenerates further, otherwise imagine what would happen if you fought a war against the SCO 15 years from now without Iraq? Organization and discipline at this rate would have been non existent.
That doesn't work: A war you win can't be used this way, because the officers will very reasonably point out that hey, they won, so what's your bitch? And a war you lose is a bad idea any way you look at it. That's aside from the other costs of war, of course, which are probably much larger (at least for a big, well-protected state like the US) than the costs of having a few months' worth of ramp-up time in a big war, a la the US in WWII. The US can accept a Kasserine Pass a few times in a century; but experientally it's not doing well with a Vietnam, a couple of small colonial wars, and some minor interventions over the course of a generation.
Firstly how are we defining loss? If defined as "losing a conventional war to a comparable enemy" the USA we can say hasn't lost in the strictest sense wither the Vietnam war or the Iraq war. In fact losing these two wars only exists under the definition of pulling out before the war can be brought to its conclusion which according to Sun Tzu is the correct military strategy, costly drawn out campaigns cost the people and the state hurts moral and leaves you vulnerable.
And on the positive note pulling out of either nation doesn't hurt the US directly, Vietnam and Iraqi insurgents (and the Taliban) cannot follow the war to US soldier in any way that hurts US sovereignty, there's no way for them to force the US to "surrender" territory.
Now as for winning a war there is still the matter of Pyrrhic victories, "One more victory and I will be ruined!" etc. WWI was arguably a victory but you didn't really see the Generals in that much of a position to say "we won lets not change anything" public opinion was very much against such blood letting or repeat performances, careers ruined, alternate ways of fighting wars (tanks and armoured warfare) were explored, militaries in general reorganized to reflect the new realities.
Some of the most successful examples of military reorganization are generally embarked prior to a war but there are several examples of successful reorganizations during or just after a war, the Soviet Union for example had the Red Army which was quite literally unrecognizable in an organizational and doctrinal sense in difference between the bulky and unready 1941 Red Army and the 1945 Red Army then there's the actual example of its peacetime reorganizations to the Soviet Army model in 1948 which saw a massive reorganization based on the lessons from the Second World War.
The US army went through similar between 1939 and 1945 and again afterwards as it retooled from a country mobilized for war to a country taking up defense commitments around the world in its new position of Hegemon. (And for example Curtis LeMay kicking ass in the Strategic Air Command when it was utterly in shambles and nowhere near ready to withstand any kind of Soviet attack)
The trend is that usually in periods of peace you don't have the younger brilliant officers being promoted as fast to be in their most suitable positions, military expenditures are usually scaled back for peacetime training, procurement and deployment and during times of particularily bad combination of 'peace' and dove centric administration further budget cuts would be expected if not the norm for many larger militaries.
Since generals are loath to release soldiers, trained NCOs or reduce its officer corps either more troops need to be switched to a cheaper "reserve" status or funding for training and specialist education will go first before soldiers and vehicals are let go or mothballed respectively.
In short there is a demonstrable historical trend towards complacency! Which leads to laziness, lowered defense budgets that only a 'war' regardless of victory or defeat can temporarily shake a nation out of.
The Vietnam war forced a keen investigation of several chronically failing or not up to par parts of the US military from procurement and recruitment to training and doctrine and in general increased US readiness and efficiency US action in the Gulf War Uno probably a good indicator while pisspoor performance in hellholes like Somalia would still serve of reminders that even superpower (or hyperpower) militaries still have short comings.
And right now the US military is in a better lighter, leaner, smarter position to deal with insurgents then it was 9 years ago to deal with insurgents the only problem is that there's no political support by the populace that did use to like the US to support the US to end.
IP: Logged |
A summary: the video is edited heavily. The Apaches are called in on a group that was clearly engaging US troops. There *were* AK-47s and an RPG visible in the video. The reporters may well have been there because the insurgents use photographers to document their attacks so they can get paid.
The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians. He says, regarding whether or not that constitutes an aggressive act, "To me, being the guy on the ground who has to deal with the fallout, it sure as hell is..."
quote:Now, nearly a decade after the fact [9/11], the internet has no problems hurling invective at Soldiers. Kids, 18 to 25 years old usually, performing a hard job, for low pay, at great risk. The vast majority are good kids, who believe in what they are doing. These are not, by and large, murdering sociopaths out for the blood of brown people. We don't have horns, we don't eat babies, and most of these kids get out the first chance they have. We see horrible things over there all the time, things we carry with us for the rest of our lives.
People call us murders, yell we are accessories to a crimes against humanity, but we agreed to serve, we swore an oath, signed our names, and part of that agreement includes finishing our terms of service. We are required to follow all lawful orders. We are also obligated not to follow an unlawful order. It takes strength and courage not to follow an unlawful order, and, there are hundreds of thousands of Soldiers; in a group that size you're gonna come across bad actors. The vast majority are good people.
This Wikileaks video is... awful. What it shows is worse. The Law of Land Warfare is common knowledge among Soldiers, it must be be followed to the letter. When it is not, those who violate LLW must be held accountable. But to paint all Soldiers with this broad brush, to assume that the majority are bloodthirsty animals with itchy trigger fingers is insulting, its counter to common sense, and, not that the internet cares, but ladies and gentlemen, it hurts.
I think the vast majority of soliders are mundane, adequate young people who have been trained to be very, very bad in specific situations. Some of them may in fact be truly good people. Some of them probably started out bad.
I do not see any evidence that suggests the vast majority of them are good.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ... Kids, 18 to 25 years old usually, performing a hard job, for low pay, at great risk... and most of these kids get out the first chance they have.
Also means poorly educated and poorly motivated. Kind of predictable what would happen if you gave them heavy weapons too.
quote:... to assume that the majority are bloodthirsty animals with itchy trigger fingers is insulting ...
It's also not terribly off from how the military describes it.
quote:General Mcchrystal: "We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."
He continued: "That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
posted
(Keep in mind that we're talking about some random guy on the Internet that claims to have been there)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: A summary: the video is edited heavily.
This myth has been circulating but is wrong.
quote: From the very beginning, WikiLeaks released the full, 38-minute, unedited version of that incident -- and did so right on the site they created for release of the edited video. In fact, the first video is marked "Short version," and the second video -- posted directly under it -- is marked "Full version," and just for those who still didn't pick up on the meaning, they explained:
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
quote: The van, he says, is a little more problematic, but that type of vehicle was commonly used as a transport for insurgents. They would also take away the bodies and weapons of insurgents,leaving behind civilian casualties trying to make it look like a hit against civilians.
Type of vehicle? It's a minivan. Toyota IIRC. What should regular civilians use to stand out? A tricycle?
In any case, the military reports concede that in this case the minivan driver was civilian. AlJazaeera reports that the military has approved compensation but has not followed through. Here's an interview with the family. Iraqi family demands justice for US attack death Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're not talking about some random guy on the internet. Edodo is a pretty close knit community and the guy is legit. Has been hospitalized by an IED, in fact.
And I'm pretty sure he said he watched the 38 minute version (I can't get to edodo from work) and is saying that that video is edited as well.
But, whatever. I'm trying to offer you guys other perspectives. As I said from the beginning, it doesn't surprise me that they are unwanted.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* If he (or the military) can provide an unedited version, then they can go right ahead.
As to the issue of identity, he/she IS just some random person on the Internet. Hell, you're a random person on the Internet to me (and vice versa). Until proven otherwise, they could be a beach blonde from California to a street food vendor in Chongqing for all I know. This is basic Internet safety procedure.
I'm not even saying that they're saying anything particularly controversial. I'd say the same thing if I saw a poster on Slashdot give a negative review of the next Apple OS.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think the vast majority of soliders are mundane, adequate young people who have been trained to be very, very bad in specific situations. Some of them may in fact be truly good people. Some of them probably started out bad.
I do not see any evidence that suggests the vast majority of them are good.
You could say the same thing about humanity in general.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On second thought I should not have engaged in the issue of effectiveness. I would point out that losing a war like Vietnam, where no armed enemy ever came within sight of even a peripheral vassal-state like Japan, had enormous costs in the morale, self-confidence, and discipline of the US armed forces and political establishment; these are costs not well modelled by the likes of EU3, which is why you tend to ignore them, but they are very real and the US is still feeling them. If you like, stab dropped to -3, and has not yet risen above 1. A big nation like the US has enormous stab-regain costs, of course, and besides that it has mainly been minting and doing infra research over the past forty years. It's easy to pass forty years in about half an hour of EU3 gaming, and see your stab rise 4 points even without much funding, and think "Ah, now that's more like it". It doesn't go so fast in the high-resolution version known as Real Life. "Political will" is not something that can be summoned up by the player making a steely-jawed, tough-minded decision. It is a very real, emergent phenomenon that arises from the people.
But all that said, the main point is this: You can't go around practicing large-scale killing on the grounds that someday you might have to be good at it! That way madness lies. Any nation that did such a thing would find itself a rogue state; Europe would rearm, Russia and China would make overtures to Germany, Japan and India would drop their neutrality policies, and generally speaking the potential Great Powers would find themselves forced to become actual Great Powers and resist the current hegemon, or else. Who knows who might be next, if wars are fought for practice?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, I gotta say, some guy on the internet saying "Trust me, that video was edited and it's clear that they were carrying weapons, anyway." doesn't hold much weight with me, especially in light of the lengths the military has gone to suppress this.
It's possible that this is the case (although, I've looked at the parts where the people were clearly carrying weapons and it seems very ambiguous to me), but it doesn't make a lot of sense in the surrounding context and it also sounds like it would be extremely easy for someone to produce a refuting unedited video, if one existed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Yes that's why KoM, you set up little Xanatos Gambits years in advance so that you have at the right time enemies TO fight without hurting world opinion, preferably located in easily invade-able flat desert regions where your mechanized forces can pwn all that face them, hrrm.... Sounds familiar.
In this context the coincidence of the US setting up so many CIA assets to become tinpot dictators that they themselves come to overthrow through military force or a varied number of similar means later on "conveniently" seems rather contrived coincidence at this point.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
.
