Murtha accuses Marines of war crimes

[fastpat]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Mull knows he's crazy, now if you would just accept you moon-bat status I could call it a day?

Your posts are mostly lucid, yet your basic morals are the same as Mul's, at least as far as what you post here.

Those morals are of the type that permit you to rationalize the murders of hundred's of thousands of humans, and are the same as those of any tyrant.

[cool_chick]

Actually, Fastpat, I think Lendaddy has trouble imagining a particular American in the military potentially not being the most stable person. He can imagine it with terrorists, with some muslims, with some people in inner cities, with even some neighbors, but I think he has a difficult time seeing that even that segment of society also has it's share of mean people, just for the sake of being mean.

At least this is what I think.

[jyl]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Mull knows he's crazy, now if you would just accept you moon-bat status I could call it a day?

But don't you and Whack-A-Mul walk hand-in-hand, on the issues that is?

[dd74]

The certain fact is this: no matter who screams the loudest - Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy, McCain - they will not end the war. Whether it's found that the war is an ill-conceived war, will not end it. But soldiers "going off" and killing civies - particularly children - can't go on: even the Administration knows this (though they've been mum about it AFAIK).

I still believe it's a stress issue: CC calls some "mean," and I agree; there's meanness everywhere. But I see as much, if not more humanity coming out of U.S. soldiers in Iraq than the typical commuter on Interstate 10.

I think it's stress, as I said earlier. I think what needs to be done is lessen the length of tours for the military, and lessen the tours in general. And in training, give them some sort of stress education - maybe something to insure they won't go off half-cocked.

No matter what, I still like to think of things from their points of view - not the media, not the Liberals or NeoCons - but that these soldiers are in a helluva situation, even though they'll tell the public at hand the polar opposite.

You really can't help but feel for them.

[lendaddy]

No, I fully understand that isolated incidences can occur, some pure evil. My father has told me of the things that happened in Nam....he pulled no punches. My brother has told me of the things that went on in Somalia.....also very frank.

My point is that they are not normal and although the military didn't and doesn't report them all, they do have internal ways of dealing with them and administering some form of justice (hint hint). No organization of any type is quick or loud when reporting its failures or f'ups. This is normal.

[lendaddy]

Also, I don't understand the implication exactly. What is being said here, that the US military fosters an environment that brings out the worst in men? Or that war does? Therefore neither can be allowed to exist? What?

[dd74]

War does. The U.S. military is caught in an unenviable "catch up" position, where it has to train its people for increasingly worse situations. I'm sure it does the best it can.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by dd74
War does. The U.S. military is caught in an unenviable "catch up" position, where it has to train its people for increasingly worse situations. I'm sure it does the best it can.

Well that's my point I guess. Sad but true that these things happen in war. A guy in my brothers unit went nutso in Somalia and launched dozens of grenades into an apartment building. I believe he said they Section 8'd (not sure if I have that right) him and rebuilt the building. Now what good would come from going front page with something like this? Our enemies get psychological ammo? No, you keep it as quiet as you can get away with while making amends as best you can.

[Jim Richards]

was anyone making ammends in this case? just curious.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
was anyone making ammends in this case? just curious.

Almost impossible in this heinous a situation, but one would assume they've tried if true.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
was anyone making ammends in this case? just curious.

I bet there was. But here's the thing: the U.S. presence in Iraq is so understaffed as is, it'd probably do no good for our side to send these soldiers away to stand trial. As Lendaddy stated with someone in his bro's company, reassign these guys to non-combat roles, then sort their fate when their tour ends.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by jyl
But don't you and Whack-A-Mul walk hand-in-hand, on the issues that is?

Missed this one. Mull is a political shock jock, he loves getting your dander up. Although he and I agree on most things, we go about it differently. If you're not laughing with(not at) him at least 40% of the time, then you're not getting his posts.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
In answer to your question, Berger was tried in the media.

Berger was given a pass. The story, despite being HUGE!!!! was covered for moments, spun in his favor and then forgotten.

Cam, you are clueless.

[jyl]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Missed this one. Mull is a political shock jock, he loves getting your dander up. Although he and I agree on most things, we go about it differently. If you're not laughing with(not at) him at least 40% of the time, then you're not getting his posts.

Glad you find him funny. I think he's a high decibel lunatic, the noise in this board's signal-to-noise. But, you pick your friends.

Getting back to Haditha, I wonder about sending units back for two, three, or more tours in Iraq.

In WW2 the US military did some ground-breaking research into how long men could remain combat effective. I don't recall the details, but the conclusion was that a "typical" soldier reached his peak of effectiveness after a few months, was seriously deteriorated after several months, and that after a year of combat he was not very effective.

I think that work led to the 1 year tour of duty in Vietnam. I don't know if that was judged a success, especially when individuals were rotating in and out of the war rather than whole cohesive units going in and coming out together.

Now the units in Iraq are doing a combat tour, rotating out for several months, going back for another tour, and on and on. I understand we may not have any choice, considering the indefinite length of the war and the limited number of combat units in the US military. And I suppose returning units may be more effective since they are more experienced. But I am wondering what kind of toll it takes on the men.

Do the findings of the military in WW2 still apply, even if the man's combat days are cumulative over multiple tours rather than all in one long tour?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Actually, Fastpat, I think Lendaddy has trouble imagining a particular American in the military potentially not being the most stable person. He can imagine it with terrorists, with some muslims, with some people in inner cities, with even some neighbors, but I think he has a difficult time seeing that even that segment of society also has it's share of mean people, just for the sake of being mean.

At least this is what I think.

There's some evidence to back up some of your suppositions. it's not easy to find, but there is information out there about a problem the military is trying very hard to keep from the public: gang activity. In parts of Iraq, there is a tagging war between gangs -- in particular, two big Chicago gangs, Latin Kings and Vice Lords.

The vast majority of soldiers represent the best of us. But there are bad apples...

[Mulhollanddose]

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Berger was given a pass. The story, despite being HUGE!!!! was covered for moments, spun in his favor and then forgotten.

Cam, you are clueless.

No he wasn't - you're so biased you can't tell. There was a huge amount of media coverage - much of it presupposing guilt. In addition, pretty much every right wing pundit bayed for his blood, without restraint.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001

Originally posted by lendaddy
Also, I don't understand the implication exactly. What is being said here, that the US military fosters an environment that brings out the worst in men? Or that war does? Therefore neither can be allowed to exist? What?

Len - what's compounding it here is that this is a discretionary war, and many people who might have initially supported it no longer do. This really just proves that war isn't easy, and has consequences. Even now, the media coverage is focusing on the impact to the Marines and their families (and there is undoubtedly a terrible impact to them) ... what about the Iraqis?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
Those morals are of the type that permit you to rationalize the murders of hundred's of thousands of humans, and are the same as those of any tyrant.

Add to this statement the fact that we have liberated 50,000,000 people, protected the oppressed from murderers, have gone out of our way to be kind and gentle to those we protect, all the while killing terrorists and pulling them up at the root, the complexion of the propaganda you offer changes, don't it?

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
(yet another stupid picture)

Mul, that's racist and insensitive. If your neighbour was a Muslim, would you show him that? Why can't you respect other people?

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Add to this statement the fact that we have liberated 50,000,000 people,

Not yet you haven't - I'm sure they'll disagree.

protected the oppressed from murderers

How many people are murdered a day at the moment? You are not protecting them well at all.

, have gone out of our way to be kind and gentle to those we protect,

Yes, but...

all the while killing terrorists and pulling them up at the root, the complexion of the propaganda you offer changes, don't it?

Most of the people being killed are insurgents, not terrorists, which kinda dilutes the whole "war on terrorism" BS.