CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Keep a sharp eye, ... We ain't done with this war yet."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Keep a sharp eye, ... We ain't done with this war yet."

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/in...=all&position=


Cpl. Nathan R. Anderson was killed in an ambush.

Quote:
In Falluja, Young Marines Saw the Savagery of an Urban War
By DEXTER FILKINS

Published: November 21, 2004

FALLUJA, Iraq, Nov. 18 - Eight days after the Americans entered the city on foot, a pair of marines wound their way up the darkened innards of a minaret, shot through with holes by an American tank.

As the marines inched upward, a burst of gunfire rang down, fired by an insurgent hiding in the top of the tower. The bullets hit the first marine in the face, his blood spattering the marine behind him. The marine in the rear tumbled backward down the stairwell, while Lance Cpl. William Miller, age 22, lay in silence halfway up, mortally wounded.

"Miller!" the marines called from below. "Miller!"

With that, the marines' near mystical commandment against leaving a comrade behind seized the group. One after another, the young marines dashed into the minaret, into darkness and into gunfire, and wound their way up the stairs.

After four attempts, Corporal Miller's lifeless body emerged from the tower, his comrades choking and covered with dust. With more insurgents closing in, the marines ran through volleys of machine-gun fire back to their base.

"I was trying to be careful, but I was trying to get him out, you know what I'm saying?" Lance Cpl. Michael Gogin, 19, said afterward.

So went eight days of combat for this Iraqi city, the most sustained period of street-to-street fighting that Americans have encountered since the Vietnam War. The proximity gave the fighting a hellish intensity, with soldiers often close enough to look their enemies in the eyes.

For a correspondent who has covered a half dozen armed conflicts, including the war in Iraq since its start in March 2003, the fighting seen while traveling with a frontline unit in Falluja was a qualitatively different experience, a leap into a different kind of battle.

From the first rockets vaulting out of the city as the marines moved in, the noise and feel of the battle seemed altogether extraordinary; at other times, hardly real at all. The intimacy of combat, this plunge into urban warfare, was new to this generation of American soldiers, but it is a kind of fighting they will probably see again: a grinding struggle to root out guerrillas entrenched in a city, on streets marked in a language few American soldiers could comprehend.

The price for the Americans so far: 51 dead and 425 wounded, a number that may yet increase but that already exceeds the toll from any battle in the Iraq war.

Marines in Harm's Way

The 150 marines with whom I traveled, Bravo Company of the First Battalion, Eighth Marines, had it as tough as any unit in the fight. They moved through the city almost entirely on foot, into the heart of the resistance, rarely protected by tanks or troop carriers, working their way through Falluja's narrow streets with 75-pound packs on their backs.

In eight days of fighting, Bravo Company took 36 casualties, including 6 dead, meaning that the unit's men had about a one-in-four chance of being wounded or killed in little more than a week.

The sounds, sights and feel of the battle were as old as war itself, and as new as the Pentagon's latest weapons systems. The eerie pop from the cannon of the AC-130 gunship, prowling above the city at night, firing at guerrillas who were often only steps away from Americans on the ground. The weird buzz of the Dragon Eye pilotless airplane, hovering over the battlefield as its video cameras beamed real-time images back to the base.

The glow of the insurgents' flares, throwing daylight over a landscape to help them spot their targets: us.

The nervous shove of a marine scrambling for space along a brick wall as tracer rounds ricocheted above.

The silence between the ping of the shell leaving its mortar tube and the explosion when it strikes.

The screams of the marines when one of their comrades, Cpl. Jake Knospler, lost part of his jaw to a hand grenade.

"No, no, no!" the marines shouted as they dragged Corporal Knospler from the darkened house where the bomb went off. It was 2 a.m., the sky dark without a moon. "No, no, no!"

Nothing in the combat I saw even remotely resembled the scenes regularly flashed across movie screens; even so, they often seemed no more real.

Mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades began raining down on Bravo Company the moment its men began piling out of their troop carriers just outside Falluja. The shells looked like Fourth of July bottle rockets, sailing over the ridge ahead as if fired by children, exploding in a whoosh of sparks.

Whole buildings, minarets and human beings were vaporized in barrages of exploding shells. A man dressed in a white dishdasha crawled across a desolate field, reaching behind a gnarled plant to hide, when he collapsed before a burst of fire from an American tank.

Sometimes the casualties came in volleys, like bursts of machine-gun fire. On the first morning of battle, during a ferocious struggle for the Muhammadia Mosque, about 45 marines with Bravo Company's Third Platoon dashed across 40th Street, right into interlocking streams of fire. By the time the platoon made it to the other side, five men lay bleeding in the street.

The marines rushed out to get them, as they would days later in the minaret, but it was too late for Sgt. Lonny Wells, who bled to death on the side of the road. One of the men who braved gunfire to pull in Sergeant Wells was Cpl. Nathan Anderson, who died three days later in an ambush.

Sergeant Wells's death dealt the Third Platoon a heavy blow; as a leader of one of its squads, he had written letters to the parents of its younger members, assuring them he would look over them during the tour in Iraq.

"He loved playing cards," Cpl. Gentian Marku recalled. "He knew all the probabilities."

More than once, death crept up and snatched a member of Bravo Company and quietly slipped away. Cpl. Nick Ziolkowski, nicknamed Ski, was a Bravo Company sniper. For hours at a stretch, Corporal Ziolkowski would sit on a rooftop, looking through the scope on his bolt-action M-40 rifle, waiting for guerrillas to step into his sights. The scope was big and wide, and Corporal Ziolkowski often took off his helmet to get a better look.

Tall, good-looking and gregarious, Corporal Ziolkowski was one of Bravo Company's most popular soldiers. Unlike most snipers, who learned to shoot growing up in the countryside, Corporal Ziolkowski grew up near Baltimore, unfamiliar with guns. Though Baltimore boasts no beach front, Corporal Ziolkowski's passion was surfing; at Camp Lejeune, N.C., Bravo Company's base, he would often organize his entire day around the tides.

"All I need now is a beach with some waves," Corporal Ziolkowski said, during a break from his sniper duties at Falluja's Grand Mosque, where he killed three men in a single day.

During that same break, Corporal Ziolkowski foretold his own death. The snipers, he said, were now among the most hunted of American soldiers.

In the first battle for Falluja, in April, American snipers had been especially lethal, Corporal Ziolkowski said, and intelligence officers had warned him that this time, the snipers would be targets.

"They are trying to take us out," Corporal Ziolkowski said.

The bullet knocked Corporal Ziolkowski backward and onto the roof. He had been sitting there on the outskirts of the Shuhada neighborhood, an area controlled by insurgents, peering through his wide scope. He had taken his helmet off to get a better view. The bullet hit him in the head.

...

Cpl. Nicholas Ziolkowski: A sniper who was killed by a sniper.
post #2 of 56
Thread Starter 
... continued


Capt. Read Omohundro: During the battle for Falluja, Captain Omohundro, the 34-year-old commander of Company B kept his men from folding through his decisiveness and unflinching calmness under fire.

Quote:
Young Men, Heavy Burdens

For all the death about the place, one inescapable impression left by the marines was their youth. Everyone knows that soldiers are young; it is another thing to see men barely out of adolescence, many of whom were still in high school when this war began, shoot people dead.

The marines of Bravo Company often fought over the packets of M&M's that came with their rations. Sitting in their barracks, they sang along with the Garth Brooks paean to chewing tobacco, "Copenhagen," named for the brand they bought almost to a man:

Copenhagen, what a wad of flavor
Copenhagen, you can see it in my smile
Copenhagen, hey do yourself a favor, dip
Copenhagen, it drives the cowgirls wild


One of Bravo Company's more youthful members was Cpl. Romulo Jimenez II, age 21 from Bellington, W.Va.. Cpl. Jimenez spent much of his time showing off his tattoos - he had flames climbing up one of his arms - and talking about his 1992 Ford Mustang. He was a popular member of Bravo Company's Second Platoon, not least because he introduced his sister to a fellow marine, Lance Cpl. Sean Evans, and the couple married.

In the days before the battle started, Corporal Jimenez called his sister, Katherine, to ask that she fix up the interior of his Mustang before he got home.

"Make it look real nice," he told her.

On Wednesday, Nov. 10, around 2 p.m., Corporal Jimenez was shot in the neck by a sniper as he advanced with his platoon through the northern end of Falluja, just near the green-domed Muhammadia Mosque. He died instantly.

Despite their youth, the marines seemed to tower over their peers outside the military in maturity and guts. Many of Bravo Company's best marines, its most proficient killers, were 19 and 20 years old; some directed their comrades in maneuvers and assaults. Bravo Company's three lieutenants, each responsible for the lives of about 50 men, were 23 and 24 years old.

They are a strangely anonymous bunch. The men who fight America's wars seem invariably to come from little towns and medium-size cities far away from the nation's arteries along the coast. Line up a group of marines and ask them where they are from, and they will give you a list of places like Pearland, Tex.; Lodi, Ohio; Osawatomie, Kan.

Typical of the marines who fought in Falluja was Chad Ritchie, a 22-year-old corporal from Keezletown, Va. Corporal Ritchie, a soft-spoken, bespectacled intelligence officer, said he was happy to be out of the tiny place where he grew up, though he admitted that he sometimes missed the good times on Friday nights in the fields.

"We'd have a bonfire, and back the trucks up on it, and open up the backs, and someone would always have some speakers," Corporal Ritchie said. "We'd drink beer, tell stories."

Like many of the young men in Bravo Company, Corporal Ritchie said he had joined the Marines because he yearned for an adventure greater than his small town could offer.

"The guys who stayed, they're all living with their parents, making $7 an hour," Corporal Ritchie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who gets old and says, 'I wish I had done this. I wish I had done that.' Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check."

Holding Up Under Fire

Marines like Corporal Ritchie proved themselves time and again in Falluja, but they were not without fear. While camped out one night in the Iraqi National Guard building in the middle of city, Bravo Company came under mortar fire that grew closer with each shot. The insurgents were "bracketing" the building, firing shots to the left and right of the target and adjusting their fire each time.

In the hallways, where the men had camped for the night, the murmured sounds of prayers rose between the explosions. After 20 tries, the shelling inexplicably stopped.

On one particularly grim night, a group of marines from Bravo Company's First Platoon turned a corner in the darkness and headed up an alley. As they did so, they came across men dressed in uniforms worn by the Iraqi National Guard. The uniforms were so perfect that they even carried pieces of red tape and white, the signal agreed upon to assure American soldiers that any Iraqis dressed that way would be friendly; the others could be killed.

The marines, spotting the red and white tape, waved, and the men in Iraqi uniforms opened fire. One American, Corporal Anderson, died instantly. One of the wounded men, Pfc. Andrew Russell, lay in the road, screaming from a nearly severed leg.

A group of marines ran forward into the gunfire to pull their comrades out. But the ambush, and the enemy flares and gunfire that followed, rattled the men of Bravo Company more than any event. In the darkness, the men began to argue. Others stood around in the road. As the platoon's leader, Lt. Andy Eckert, struggled to take charge, the Third Platoon seemed on the brink of panic.

"Everybody was scared," Lieutenant Eckert said afterward. "If the leader can't hold, then the unit can't hold together."

The unit did hold, but only after the intervention of Bravo Company's commanding officer, Capt. Read Omohundro.

Time and again through the week, Captain Omohundro kept his men from folding, if not by his resolute manner then by his calmness under fire. In the first 16 hours of battle, when the combat was continuous and the threat of death ever present, Captain Omohundro never flinched, moving his men through the warrens and back alleys of Falluja with an uncanny sense of space and time, sensing the enemy, sensing the location of his men, even in the darkness, entirely self-possessed.

"Damn it, get moving," Captain Omohundro said, and his men, looking relieved that they had been given direction amid the anarchy, were only too happy to oblige.

A little later, Captain Omohundro, a 34-year-old Texan, allowed that the strain of the battle had weighed on him, but he said that he had long ago trained himself to keep any self-doubt hidden from view.

"It's not like I don't feel it," Captain Omohundro said. "But if I were to show it, the whole thing would come apart."

When the heavy fighting was finally over, a dog began to follow Bravo Company through Falluja's broken streets. First it lay down in the road outside one of the buildings the company had occupied, between troop carriers. Then, as the troops moved on, the mangy dog slinked behind them, first on a series of house searches, then on a foot patrol, always keeping its distance, but never letting the marines out of its sight.

Bravo Company, looking a bit ragged itself as it moved up through Falluja, momentarily fell out of its single-file line.

"Keep a sharp eye," Captain Omohundro told his men. "We ain't done with this war yet."
post #3 of 56
This is politics. The propaganda forum is over there. To the right.
post #4 of 56
Thread Starter 
Propaganda???
post #5 of 56
Like many of the young men in Bravo Company, Corporal Ritchie said he had joined the Marines because he yearned for an adventure greater than his small town could offer.

"The guys who stayed, they're all living with their parents, making $7 an hour," Corporal Ritchie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who gets old and says, 'I wish I had done this. I wish I had done that.' Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check."


He's convinced me. I'm taking things way too easy these days - I have to do something I'm not comfortable with. That's why I've decided to go out on a killing spree. That will give me a gut check.



What a dumb argument.
post #6 of 56
It ain't politics.
post #7 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
Like many of the young men in Bravo Company, Corporal Ritchie said he had joined the Marines because he yearned for an adventure greater than his small town could offer.

"The guys who stayed, they're all living with their parents, making $7 an hour," Corporal Ritchie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who gets old and says, 'I wish I had done this. I wish I had done that.' Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check."


What a dumb argument.
It's only a dumb argument for someone who's expecting everything to be handed to him in society. It's only dumb if you never expect to have to work or actually earn anything in life.

If that's the case, then yeah, it's a pretty dumb argument.
post #8 of 56
If it aint politics then it aint propoganda either, asshole.
post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
It's only a dumb argument for someone who's expecting everything to be handed to him in society. It's only dumb if you never expect to have to work or actually earn anything in life.

If that's the case, then yeah, it's a pretty dumb argument.
Funny, but earning a living and going overseas to kill people for pointless propaganda reasons are not the same thing for me. The only thing that guy is earning is a special place in Hell (if it exists) for the brain-challenged ones.
post #10 of 56
They 're doing their part!
post #11 of 56
Fuck meritocracy.

No one has to justify their existance, least of all by being a cog in the war machine.
post #12 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
It ain't politics.
We're always talking about this war in this forum, so I figured it was relevant. That you think it's propaganda is amazing, as the account is pretty real and it's not glossing over the American losses.

I liked the article because sometimes people talk about these things like they're a Counter-Strike match, and we often don't see the faces of those who are killed (in the similar vein as those who say we don't see the civilian casualties). It strikes me as particularly sad how young many of these guys are, and they're dying over there and almost none of us have a good idea of how it is to be there ...

But anyways, I guess that's propaganda to you ... I don't know which sides propaganda you think the NYT is pushing here, it's very clever because I didn't detect it as such ...
post #13 of 56
Don't worry, the troops will be leaving Iraq soon.

Exit Strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan Released...
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
Like many of the young men in Bravo Company, Corporal Ritchie said he had joined the Marines because he yearned for an adventure greater than his small town could offer.

"The guys who stayed, they're all living with their parents, making $7 an hour," Corporal Ritchie said. "I'm not going to be one of those people who gets old and says, 'I wish I had done this. I wish I had done that.' Every once in a while, you've got to do something hard, do something you're not comfortable with. A person needs a gut check."


He's convinced me. I'm taking things way too easy these days - I have to do something I'm not comfortable with. That's why I've decided to go out on a killing spree. That will give me a gut check.



What a dumb argument.
Whoa, hang on...WHO are you addressing this to, exactly?
Don't attack the guy...he can't defend his statement against you...in this medium...

Instead, and this is just a suggestion, address the content of what he said so that others can comment...
post #15 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
Don't worry, the troops will be leaving Iraq soon.

Exit Strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan Released...
I'll be there...looking forward to it actually...always wanted to visit Iran...
post #16 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcHwArD101
I'll be there...looking forward to it actually...always wanted to visit Iran...
Pick me up an "I Heart Qom" sandglobe.
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint
Pick me up an "I Heart Qom" sandglobe.
right, then...but you have to pay shipping!
post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
Don't worry, the troops will be leaving Iraq soon.

Exit Strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan Released...
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
.......wtf....m8......
post #20 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale 'Grifter' Wicker
It's only a dumb argument for someone who's expecting everything to be handed to him in society. It's only dumb if you never expect to have to work or actually earn anything in life.

If that's the case, then yeah, it's a pretty dumb argument.
You are, as always, completely wrong. I doubt El Topo expects everything to be handed to him in society or expects never to have to work or actually earn anything in life, yet he thinks it's a dumb argument. No, it looks to me like you're just trying to assassinate the character of anyone who doesn't cheer for the U.S. military.

Unless, of course, you can actually show that El Topo expects everything to be handed to him in society or expects never to have to work or actually earn anything in life.

As for me, I think the military's a perfect option if the only other alternative is a deadend job in a deadend town, which is what this guy seems to think is the case. Certainly most of the people I know who joined the military did so because they didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives after high school. Either that or they were drafted.
post #21 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
As for me, I think the military's a perfect option if the only other alternative is a deadend job in a deadend town, which is what this guy seems to think is the case. Certainly most of the people I know who joined the military did so because they didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives after high school. Either that or they were drafted.
Most of the people I know that were in the military had many options but wanted either some help with school or to travel around the world before settling on a civilian jobs. They're mostly all professionals ... The most recent person I know is in the National Guard, and makes good money, but she joined because she actually enjoyed the intelligence work she was doing. She was stuck in Kuwait for 2 years, was not fun at all.

I almost joined the National Guard, of course my wife knocked some sense into me (this was pre-Iraq war ...)
post #22 of 56
What baffles me is how people ever arrived at the misguided notion that good things have to be “earned” and one has to work for the things that are “handed” to you in life.

Years of experience in my job have led me to the depressing conclusion that the only thing “hard work” guarantees is … more hard work.
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcHwArD101
Whoa, hang on...WHO are you addressing this to, exactly?
Don't attack the guy...he can't defend his statement against you...in this medium...

Instead, and this is just a suggestion, address the content of what he said so that others can comment...
If you actually read what I wrote... that's exactly what I did. And I doubt I'm the first ever Chewer to attack something written in an article posted for discussion - Bush can't defend himself either "in this medium" but it doesn't mean we can't take shots at him.



To clarify:
This guy says "I don't want to stay forever in my shitty town, I want to move on with my life". Fair enough, that's what most of us want. But this guy's way of doing it is to join the army on a murderous rampage in the middle-east for geopolitical reasons. Hum, excuse me? Just move to the big city and try to earn a decent living, that will be enough of a gut-check AND you won't have blood on your hands. That guy's rationalisation for joining the army is a stupid excuse for not having to fend for himself or think for himself in the real world.
post #24 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
What baffles me is how people ever arrived at the misguided notion that good things have to be “earned” and one has to work for the things that are “handed” to you in life.

Years of experience in my job have led me to the depressing conclusion that the only thing “hard work” guarantees is … more hard work.

That is truly sad. You need to explore a different job / industry.
post #25 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
To clarify:
This guy says "I don't want to stay forever in my shitty town, I want to move on with my life". Fair enough, that's what most of us want. But this guy's way of doing it is to join the army on a murderous rampage in the middle-east for geopolitical reasons. Hum, excuse me? Just move to the big city and try to earn a decent living, that will be enough of a gut-check AND you won't have blood on your hands. That guy's rationalisation for joining the army is a stupid excuse for not having to fend for himself or think for himself in the real world.
That's not a stupid excuse, that's just his reasons to join the army, which is an honorable profession in this country whether you like it or not. I don't see anything wrong with him doing that, lots of people have joined the army to gain the skills they need later in their careers. Others stay and make it their career, either option is not a bad idea, if you can be brave enough to account for the risks.
post #26 of 56
Since when has the army ever been classed as an honourable profession. Homeland security maybe as the role is to protect your own country but the main mandate of the army is that of conquest. It is a profession where you are trained for years for the sole purpose of taking out the infrastructure of a country purely because they are the enemy. I have a friend who was a military instructor for British forces in the late 1980s and his view is that for every person who joins the military to try and make a difference you have 10 people who join either out a false sense of patriotism (patriots, automatic weapons and foreign countries never mix well) or because they feel it is the only way to justify their lives (again a problem). The long and short of it is this, the army is the tool of the government at the time and as such serves no function other than to further the government’s plan. Therefore when you join the army you don’t fight for people you love or care about, America is in no danger of being invaded and there is no significant threat that armed conflict abroad can quell. If anything invading Iraq has just made America even more of a target and opting to elect a bigoted, war mongering chimp as your leader hasn’t helped the situation.
post #27 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Since when has the army ever been classed as an honourable profession. Homeland security maybe as the role is to protect your own country but the main mandate of the army is that of conquest. It is a profession where you are trained for years for the sole purpose of taking out the infrastructure of a country purely because they are the enemy. I have a friend who was a military instructor for British forces in the late 1980s and his view is that for every person who joins the military to try and make a difference you have 10 people who join either out a false sense of patriotism (patriots, automatic weapons and foreign countries never mix well) or because they feel it is the only way to justify their lives (again a problem). The long and short of it is this, the army is the tool of the government at the time and as such serves no function other than to further the government’s plan. Therefore when you join the army you don’t fight for people you love or care about, America is in no danger of being invaded and there is no significant threat that armed conflict abroad can quell. If anything invading Iraq has just made America even more of a target and opting to elect a bigoted, war mongering chimp as your leader hasn’t helped the situation.
My sentiments exactly, more eloquently put. Good post Raiftel.

The constant glorification of the army in the US isn't an accident, and it's one of the worrying lines where patriotism and nationalism cross.

lots of people have joined the army to gain the skills they need later in their careers. Others stay and make it their career, either option is not a bad idea, if you don't care about having blood on your hands or living an ethically defendable life.
post #28 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
My sentiments exactly, more eloquently put. Good post Raiftel.
If that's eloquent to you, you need to work on raising your standards.

Quote:
lots of people have joined the army to gain the skills they need later in their careers. Others stay and make it their career, either option is not a bad idea, if you don't care about having blood on your hands or living an ethically defendable life.
So everybody that is in the armed forces has blood on their hands and does not live an ethically defendable life? What a simplistic and narrow minded view.
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitanAmerica
If that's eloquent to you, you need to work on raising your standards.



So everybody that is in the armed forces has blood on their hands and does not live an ethically defendable life? What a simplistic and narrow minded view.
Could I have some tips on writing style please as I am always looking to improve and you obviously have some criticism.

Let's put this into legal terms. Every soldier in the world is operating with malice a forethought as his intention is to kill the enemy. Therefore when somebody is killed they have taken a life with malice a forethought which is the purest legal form of murder, of course being a solider it is not classed as such. Even when taking into account the kill or be killed situation soldiers are still making a rational choice to fight and as such are in control of their own actions. This negates manslaughter as even in self defence if you take a descision to take a life it is classed as unlawful killing.

That is why soldier's have blood on their hands for no matter what their cause they are commiting acts of murder. And other non frontline members of staff such as tech officers, communications analyst facilitate murder and as such become accountable in any death on the battlefield.

So yes in my opinion most soldiers and technical staff do have blood on their hands, and it is their choice if they wish to lead that lifestyle. What I take umbrage at is the idea that someone who commits murder is somehow a better or more well rounded person than some who takes an office job.

And before you go on about veterans during World War Two just speak to any group of veterans and you will hear the regret they have for their actions even if it was for a good cause.
post #30 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Could I have some tips on writing style please as I am always looking to improve and you obviously have some criticism.
I'm not here to give English lessons (nor can I), I just didn't find your post something that needs praise for eloquence. Maybe he felt that way about the chimp comment? Don't know ...

Quote:
So yes in my opinion most soldiers and technical staff do have blood on their hands, and it is their choice if they wish to lead that lifestyle. What I take umbrage at is the idea that someone who commits murder is somehow a better or more well rounded person than some who takes an office job.
I never said they are better than you or me, nor did the article say that.

Quote:
And before you go on about veterans during World War Two just speak to any group of veterans and you will hear the regret they have for their actions even if it was for a good cause.
That they regret killing people is an admirable trait, it doesn't mean what they did was not necessary, or that they were just immoral for the mere fact of being soldiers in that war.

And thanks for bringing WWII up, I've been trying to avoid that.
post #31 of 56
Raiftel,

Those are the exact arguments I have against any government sponsored policing organization. Especially cops. I mean they're trained to use those powerful guns to kill people right. That's what cops do; kill people. Not an honourable profession and not something we as taxpayers should be sponsoring.

I say that when people get out of line that we should just let individuals decide the punishment rather than jack-booted police "officers." The idea that cops (or pigs, if you prefer), or soldiers, in this country, are defenders of rights is an antiquated and outmoded line of thought. Kudos to you for expressing your wishes for vigilante justice and suffering for those not in your immediate sphere.
post #32 of 56
Thread Starter 
Cpl. Romulo Jimenez was one of the Marines featured in the NYT story ...




Top: Marines carry the casket of Cpl. Romulo Jimenez II, 21, after his funeral service in Bellington, W.Va., Friday, Nov. 19, 2004. Jimenez was killed in Fallujah, on Nov. 10, 2004. Jimenez had enlisted recently for a second tour of duty and was a member of the Marine Expeditionary Force 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division. (AP Photo/The Inter-Mountain, Suzanne Stewart)

Bottom: Mourners gather for the burial of Marine Cpl. Romulo Jimenez II, Friday, Nov. 19, 2004, in Belington, W.Va. Jimenez, 21, of Miami, died Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2004, in the battle to oust insurgents from Fallujah. He had enlisted recently for a second tour of duty and was a member of the Marine Expeditionary Force 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division. (AP Photo/The Inter-Mountain, Suzanne Stewart)
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
So yes in my opinion most soldiers and technical staff do have blood on their hands, and it is their choice if they wish to lead that lifestyle. What I take umbrage at is the idea that someone who commits murder is somehow a better or more well rounded person than some who takes an office job.
Whilst I agree with a good deal of what you've written, by labeling a military career morally wrong aren't you setting up an inescapable moral paradox of your own?

No matter how reprehensible you feel they are, won’t you gratefully accept their protection when faced with a hypothetical invading force that you don't particularly like?

If the answer is yes, then aren’t you effectively saying that the “morality” of the military is determined by your perception of the threat?
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitanAmerica
If that's eloquent to you, you need to work on raising your standards.
I meant more eloquently put than my own posts - once again, English is my second language. If you want we can carry on this conversation in French.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CapitanAmerica
So everybody that is in the armed forces has blood on their hands and does not live an ethically defendable life? What a simplistic and narrow minded view.
Everybody in the US armed forces is part of the US military machine, whose purpose is not to defend the US (or it would be much smaller) but to keep the rest of the world in check, act as a geopolitcal threat to other countries and regularly invade some of them. Do you think the US army has 700 bases all around the world, is the biggest war machine the world has ever seen and is right now solidifying its position in the middle-east just for fun? So if you're part of this enterprise and you think you're "defending freedom", in my book you're very gullible/brainwashed at best; if you're in it because you're a psychopath or because you like to never have to think for yourself that doesn't make you much better; and in all cases because you're part of this war machine you've got some responsibility for the bloodshed in Irak right now and don't get any respect from me.

That also goes for soldiers in China or any other army that does more than strictly waiting to defend its country's borders in case of an attack. The US army has not done that since WWII, it's been an invading force rather than a defensive one - or are you going to pretend that the US was protecting the Canadian border when it was bombing Vietnam, Cambodia or Salvador?



And Captain, posting a photo of a dead soldier with a flag around his coffin doesn't necessarily mean that that his death wasn't pointless, or that he was a hero. To be fair to the estimated numbers of casualties in this war you would have to post at least 50 pictures of dead Irakis now, women and children included.
post #35 of 56
You will note that I made a mention of homeland security in my first post.

Working from a legal standpoint all soldiers are guilty of murder and this in my view reprehensible but understandable when used to defend those that you love or defending your own country.

However what falls short on both legal and ethical terms is, as someone else stated, the invasion and subjugation of another country. The example in Iraq is worse than usual because not only are there now 100000 casualties of the war, but it was launched against a country that was not a ‘viable’ threat to the USA or the allied countries and has resulted in a stable if not perfect government collapsing to be replaced by an unpopular new government and radical religious fanatics.

The arguments for removing Saddam Hussain and other dictators are long and complex but the central question you have to ask you is what gives us the moral right to go to a foreign country and destroy it’s political structure because we simply disagree with it.

If America is a global policeman then the world is Rodney King.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Topo
Everybody in the US armed forces is part of the US military machine, whose purpose is not to defend the US (or it would be much smaller) but to keep the rest of the world in check, act as a geopolitcal threat to other countries and regularly invade some of them.
I’m sorry but I’m not sure your reasoning is entirely sound. Just because the US conventional armed forces (once nuclear weapons are brought into the equation – all bets are off) are, by some margin, the largest and most powerful on the planet it doesn’t follow that they don’t serve any defensive purpose whatsoever.

If an outside entity faces unstoppable and overwhelming retribution for an act of aggression against the United States then that’s as good argument for the “defensive” nature of these forces as you’ll find.

Your theory that the US would be “as safe” if it chose to dramatically cut back its military strength is pure conjecture. If the threat of total annihilation is no longer present then who’s to say that an aggressor wouldn’t “fancy his chances” a lot more?

I don't dispute that these forces are indulging in a fair bit of "empire building", but I think we must adopt a certain degree of pragmatism (as opposed to commendable but woolly idealism) when discussing this matter.
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
You will note that I made a mention of homeland security in my first post.

Working from a legal standpoint all soldiers are guilty of murder and this in my view reprehensible but understandable when used to defend those that you love or defending your own country.
So the paradox remains: whether morality gets thrown out of the window or not depends entirely on the perception of the threat. And perception is both personal and subjective.

Quote:
The arguments for removing Saddam Hussain and other dictators are long and complex but the central question you have to ask you is what gives us the moral right to go to a foreign country and destroy it’s political structure because we simply disagree with it.
It's a good question, but let us look at it from the opposite direction (leaving Iraq to one side for a moment): what morality is there in letting millions of people suffer all manner of brutalities at the hands of some despot when we have the means to stop him?
post #38 of 56
Murder in my view will always be morally reprehensible. Killing in self defence even when in a legally viable situation is a moral act which should be undertaken by those only brave enough to live with the ramifications. Killing for personal glory is despicable.

Where I live having a mentality of preparing for an inevtiable attack by arming yourself or attacking before they attack you is illegal. An example being if you are walking around with a knife for self defence the police will arrest you for carrying the weapon with the intent to harm someone due to the fact you have it.

The world is opposed to imperialists, it always has been and it always will be. You just need to look at the hatred of the English in Scotland and Ireland, and hatred for the british throughout the old occupied territories to know that empire building leads to resentment.

That is one of my biggest problems America’s large military as the only practical use for an attacking force that large is conquest and the ‘they kill 1 of us we take out an entire village of them’ revenge mentality which many US citizens have adopted.

The thing is more people suffer do to global warming causing their habitats to be desolated.

More people suffer through food crises in Africa.

Millions of people die while sleeping rough in the western world.

Millions of people die from cureable diseases in the third world.

So what do we do for them.

Nothing except allow our leaders to decline the Kyoto agreement which causes global warming, makes crops dies, destroys habitats etc.

The western world only helps when it benefits us.
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Murder in my view will always be morally reprehensible. Killing in self defence even when in a legally viable situation is a moral act which should be undertaken by those only brave enough to live with the ramifications. Killing for personal glory is despicable.

Where I live having a mentality of preparing for an inevtiable attack by arming yourself or attacking before they attack you is illegal. An example being if you are walking around with a knife for self defence the police will arrest you for carrying the weapon with the intent to harm someone due to the fact you have it.
That's all well and good, but the comparison (and therefore the argument you’ve built from it) is invalid. Citizens of the United Kingdom are subject to the laws drawn up by the state. The penalties for breaking such laws are widely known and are enforced uniformly (providing you aren't Prince Harry or some other such untouchable).

The is no centralised world authority which can impose penalties on, or police, nations. The United States, in a wave of pacifism, might well decide to throw away all its knives - but that’s not going to stop other nations wanting to double their knife collections. Just as it won’t stop them wanting to use their knife collections when an incredibly valuable piece of real estate is suddenly left without any guard dogs.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
The is no centralised world authority which can impose penalties on, or police, nations. The United States, in a wave of pacifism, might well decide to throw away all its knives - but that’s not going to stop other nations wanting to double their knife collections. Just as it won’t stop them wanting to use their knife collections when an incredibly valuable piece of real estate is suddenly left without any guard dogs.

Well in actuality the world is governed by a series of regulations which tells you what you can and can’t do in war and peace situations. What springs to mind is the Rome war crimes act which is a basic system of rules of engagement which over 120 countries have signed up too, including all of the European Community.

But America is not signed up to this or any other war crime bill which means that American’s can never be tried for War Crimes. Which brings up the question why are they not signing up. Are they worried their actions abroad may be in fact illegal?

Then again America really doesn’t like signing treaties coughKyotocough. Hell it even created the League of Nations before leaving when it was asked to do something it didn’t like.

International Crime Story

Why US won't sign up

Yet More War Crimes News
post #41 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Well in actuality the world is governed by a series of regulations which tells you what you can and can’t do in war and peace situations. What springs to mind is the Rome war crimes act which is a basic system of rules of engagement which over 120 countries have signed up too, including all of the European Community.
Firstly, 120 countries do not equal 193 (approximately), which I believe is the current total. Secondly, what does war crimes legislature have to do with the proliferation of US armed forces around the world? Thirdly, is this the same "moral" EU currently mulling over welcoming Turkey, a veritable pit of iniquity, into its warm and loving embrace?

Quote:
But America is not signed up to this or any other war crime bill which means that American’s can never be tried for War Crimes. Which brings up the question why are they not signing up. Are they worried their actions abroad may be in fact illegal?
Perhaps the Americans are. But if you are trying to argue that the US is any "worse" than a lot of other nations I can think of (Turkey being one of them), you're not going to get very far.

Quote:
Then again America really doesn’t like signing treaties coughKyotocough. Hell it even created the League of Nations before leaving when it was asked to do something it didn’t like.
America didn't sign up to Kyoto for a number of reasons, one of which was the (misguided?) fear of massive job cuts across many industries. I'm not attempting to condone George W. Bush's decision to pull out of Kyoto, but I can just about understand his reasoning.

As for your point about the UN: you don't have one. The UN was a flawed concept doomed to lurch from one disaster to the next from the very beginning. "Democratic processes" that can be undermined by a handful of very powerful nations - aren’t.
post #42 of 56
[Rant]But the american military machine is a very different beast purely for the fact of the number of conflicts it has been involved since 1990.

Off the top of my head America has had a strong military presence in Somalia, has been at war with Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq (Twice). As well as these America has sent troops to several latin American countries to help with the drug trade as well as supporting regimes in Egypt, Saudia Arabia (they train the royal guards), South Korea and Israel.

Due to this proliferation I feel that America should be the highest regulated military on the earth and yet they are not. America has no need for a big military other than to act like a global policeman and unilaterally democratise countries which either it doesn’t like or it’s allies don’t like.

In short at the moment the American military is a huge and very powerful rampaging entity which instead of being reined in by governments is allowed to swell to a nigh on ridiculous size so that all the world can feel the warmth of the American dream.

“Democratise or Die”

[/rant]

The Leauge of Nations was set up after World War 1 by America and the allies to stop any further wars. After some proposed revisions and a shaky economical plan America left the league and returned to the isolationist state it wanted. However America failed to leave any groundwork to give the League and strength and thus its attempts to stop the rise of National Socialism in the 1930s were futile. In short the league could possibly have worked had it received enough support.

LoN
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Due to this proliferation I feel that America should be the highest regulated military on the earth and yet they are not. America has no need for a big military other than to act like a global policeman and unilaterally democratise countries which either it doesn’t like or it’s allies don’t like.
Why should the American military be subject to more regulation than any other nation's? Why should it be be subjected to what could be argued to be unfair prejudice?

Quote:
In short at the moment the American military is a huge and very powerful rampaging entity which instead of being reined in by governments is allowed to swell to a nigh on ridiculous size so that all the world can feel the warmth of the American dream.
America has the largest military in the world because, up until a few years ago, it faced another army that was of equal (if not larger) size.

Given the massive number of jobs that are linked directly and indirectly to this behemoth it is simply not feasible to dismantle it overnight. Cuts have been made - cuts that have not been very popular. But we cannot expect any politician to want to slit his own throat by axing hundreds of thousands (millions?) of jobs in an eyeblink.

Let us see how large the US Army is in 10 or 20 years.
post #44 of 56
Sorry I thought I made this clear.

The american army and (to an extent the British army) both need higher regulations due to the amount of countries they are involved with. America and Britain are both involved at the moment in more military operations than the world could fathom.

Sudan
Iraq
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Columbia (US)
Northern Ireland (UK)
South Korea
Bosnia

Plus many others.

Because of this the American army is going to be one of the major military presences throughout the world. Therefore they set an example of how an army should be run and how occupying forces should behave. It is this reason that the American army should be regulated. There is also the circle of hatred which is created as the local populace are mistreated by occupying force.

130 rape counts (Bosnia- BBC News)
2000+ acts unlawful killing (Afghanistan)

and so on.

This motivates the general populace to rebel against Americans which causes the American’s to do things back.

The sad truth is that the American military machine may have the latest weapons but the training their troops are given is generally very poor and as a result you have almost unqualified soldiers in foreign countries setting an example to the rest of the world.
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
Sorry I thought I made this clear.

The american army and (to an extent the British army) both need higher regulations due to the amount of countries they are involved with. America and Britain are both involved at the moment in more military operations than the world could fathom.
Hang on, the Russians have flattened Grozny a dozen times over, the Congolese "military" has been conducting terror campaigns in the African jungle for decades and the Israelis fire air-to-ground missles into crowded streets and you’re calling for the American army to be the most regulated in the world?

How does that work?

And precisely who is going to do the regulating?

Quote:
Because of this the American army is going to be one of the major military presences throughout the world. Therefore they set an example of how an army should be run and how occupying forces should behave. It is this reason that the American army should be regulated. There is also the circle of hatred which is created as the local populace are mistreated by occupying force.

130 rape counts (Bosnia- BBC News)
2000+ acts unlawful killing (Afghanistan)

and so on.
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the US Army is more likely to let its soldiers run amok than say those under Indonesian governance?

I have no idea whether these figures you have offered are valid, nor do I know how they are qualified (“unlawful”?). No one will deny that “bad people” exist in the army, just as they do in all walks of life. One thing that I am sure of is that the American army is more likely to take them to task than most others around the world. Some armies don’t even have a legal framework for prosecuting criminal behavior.

Quote:
This motivates the general populace to rebel against Americans which causes the American’s to do things back.

The sad truth is that the American military machine may have the latest weapons but the training their troops are given is generally very poor and as a result you have almost unqualified soldiers in foreign countries setting an example to the rest of the world.
I think you’ve been listening to a bit too much jingo Brits-do-it-best boasting from the tabloid media. The American army is as well trained as any modern army. One could argue that it is the most well trained of all.
post #46 of 56
The American is in the view of a large number of military analysts something of a powerhouse in design more akin to the Visigoths and the barbarians of ancient rome in their tactics than a modern army.

Remember shock and awe, that was basically a campaign of mass destruction where a carpet of cluster bombs were dropped liberally onto Iraq to “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” Basically the American combat system is to bring the wrath of god down onto an opposing city.

The thing is that when stripped of situations where they can no longer use their weapons American soldiers are hard pressed to fight that is why during the war there were around a 1000 casualties on the American side and in the aftermath where street battles and gun fights are deciding factors the casualty list has shot up to the 15000 mark. Or if you go back a little look at Vietnam where American’s were defeated by their technological inferiors simply for the reason the Vietnamese knew how to fight and all the napalm and agent orange in the world could not change that.

The reason an American military needs regulating is that their militaries spectrum of influence is so large that their actions affect a large chunk of the global populace.
post #47 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiftel
The American is in the view of a large number of military analysts something of a powerhouse in design more akin to the Visigoths and the barbarians of ancient rome in their tactics than a modern army.
And who did you say are these “military analysts” are again? British? Are you aware of the embarrassing military blunders that were made in the Falklands (sending a battle fleet into the islands with little to no air cover)? The French? Have you been paying attention to absolute mess that is the Ivory Coast?

Quote:
Remember shock and awe, that was basically a campaign of mass destruction where a carpet of cluster bombs were dropped liberally onto Iraq to “deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.” Basically the American combat system is to bring the wrath of god down onto an opposing city.
S&A was not the US Air Force’s finest hour, but this tactical blunder pales into insignificance in comparison to the strategic blunder that was going into Iraq in the first place. The American army is, for reasons that are entirely understandable, incredibly concerned about not flying too many of its men and women back in body bags. To help minimise the number of ground casualties (always likely to be high in pitched street battles) it relies upon heavy air bombardment to soften up the area. This bombardment invariably results in many civilian casualties. The blunt rationale is simple: our people or theirs. I don’t like it, but I can understand it.

In truth this job should have been completed during Bush Snr’s presidency, but the jury is out on whether an Iraqi army not starved by 10 years of sanctions would have fought much harder – leading to far more loss of life.

Quote:
The thing is that when stripped of situations where they can no longer use their weapons American soldiers are hard pressed to fight that is why during the war there were around a 1000 casualties on the American side and in the aftermath where street battles and gun fights are deciding factors the casualty list has shot up to the 15000 mark. Or if you go back a little look at Vietnam where American’s were defeated by their technological inferiors simply for the reason the Vietnamese knew how to fight and all the napalm and agent orange in the world could not change that.
This is part nonsense, part barefaced lie. America’s defeat in Vietnam was less to do with the indigenous population’s (admittedly impressive) fighting skill than the political straight jacket they found themselves in. How do you defeat an enemy that disappears behind foreign borders protected by superpowers that are itching to launch nuclear Armageddon?

Got any ideas?
post #48 of 56
So you are trying to attribute America's defeat in Vietnam not to the fact they were fighting a largely invisible enemy mounting a guriella war but because they were protected by Iron Curtain. American's lost a large portion of their troops during the Tet offensive when the enemy was attacking them and as such the vietnamese would not be able to hide behind political sanctions.

As for military mistakes they can't really be helped, but Shock and Awe was not a mistake it was a conserted effort by the american military machine to destroy the phsyical and mental power of the Iraqi people.

The military analysts I was referring were ex USA military commanders who now serve as advisors to documentary makers, film makers and authors trying to capture a legitimate image of what the army was like.

The analyst was speaking on a BBC2 show called the Power of Nightmares about the way an american army would not cope with any sort of urban war.
post #49 of 56
Quote:
So you are trying to attribute America's defeat in Vietnam not to the fact they were fighting a largely invisible enemy mounting a guriella war but because they were protected by Iron Curtain. American's lost a large portion of their troops during the Tet offensive when the enemy was attacking them and as such the vietnamese would not be able to hide behind political sanctions.
Absolutely they were protected, financed and armed by the Soviet Union and China. You don’t think they made those rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s and artillery pieces themselves do you? Had the US been able to cut off their massive supply lines and escape routes without risking nuclear attack, Vietnam would have been a far different story.

Quote:
The military analysts I was referring were ex USA military commanders who now serve as advisors to documentary makers, film makers and authors trying to capture a legitimate image of what the army was like.
Are these the very same ex-military commanders who, according to you, were so massively “outclassed” in Vietnam? If they are as inept as you describe then why should anyone listen to them?

Quote:
The analyst was speaking on a BBC2 show called the Power of Nightmares about the way an american army would not cope with any sort of urban war.
The transcripts of tPoN are available in this forum (I posted them), I shall have to check the quote. But given that urban warfare is the most brutal and messy kind of fighting imaginable (mastered by no army I can think of), I posit that no army is perfectly equipped to cope with the kind of mayhem that ensues when you have two (or more) forces battling each other with small arms inside a concrete jungle.
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AgentOrange
I’m sorry but I’m not sure your reasoning is entirely sound. Just because the US conventional armed forces (once nuclear weapons are brought into the equation – all bets are off) are, by some margin, the largest and most powerful on the planet it doesn’t follow that they don’t serve any defensive purpose whatsoever.

If an outside entity faces unstoppable and overwhelming retribution for an act of aggression against the United States then that’s as good argument for the “defensive” nature of these forces as you’ll find.

Your theory that the US would be “as safe” if it chose to dramatically cut back its military strength is pure conjecture. If the threat of total annihilation is no longer present then who’s to say that an aggressor wouldn’t “fancy his chances” a lot more?

I don't dispute that these forces are indulging in a fair bit of "empire building", but I think we must adopt a certain degree of pragmatism (as opposed to commendable but woolly idealism) when discussing this matter.
There you go, I think you've made my point: with the nuclear bomb no country is ever going to attack the US unless it is totally suicidal, therefore a much smaller army would be enough to defend the US's borders, and the current huge military/industrial complex's purpose is elsewhere:
to expend US power over the world
to make a lot of money by selling weapons to the State and to other States
- both of which necessarily require a regular war to keep other countries in check and replenish the stock of weapons and create more riches for the few.

Personally I don't care how many people would lose their job in the US if this system was turned way down, at least they'd still be alive, which is more than can be said for civilians in Vietnam or Irak.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › "Keep a sharp eye, ... We ain't done with this war yet."