Wikileaks and Iraq: Take 2, What's in a Number?

[TrueMetis]

Hell yeah I blame the soldiers, both for their own actions and for fighting a war that had nothing to do with the reality of al-Qaeda, which was so blisteringly obvious to anyone with a brain in 2002/3. Soldiers, volunteer soldiers even more so, can very easily put their guns down if they don't believe in the war they're told to fight. Shit, in Vietnam, they'd shoot themselves in the foot or frag their commander. Instead, these young kids signed up and proceeded to not ask any questions; therefore, if you'd shoot babies for the American government because you're told to, you're morally culpable for the results.

You do realize that in the U.S. military you don't have a fucking choice where you go. The choices are go, go to jail, or flee the country. You can't just say no, in fact Canada's dealt with many people who came here from asylum because saying "I don't want to got to Iraq" didn't fly. So given the choice which would you do? Go, go to a military prison, or lose you're country and not be able to visit your family. Personally If it's me in that situation my ass is going and while there I'll do my damnedest to keep the civilians casualties as low as humanly possible. FYI before you say it the shit they did in Vietnam wouldn't fly either.

Well, frankly, no shit. If the Nazis had won, our vets would have been on trial.

And, in case you didn't know, some soldiers been collecting ears off dead Afghans over in AfPak. I'd say that's up there with killing Japanese infantry and prying out their gold fillings, but that's just me.

That's sadistic shit, but that not what's being talked about that's not collateral damage. Neither was allied forces bombing cities of no strategic or military importance, which people should have been tried for as people should be tried for collecting peoples ears. (think these people read ASOFAI?) Collateral damage on the other hand is not something people are tried for because it is unavoidable in a war zone.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You do realize that in the U.S. military you don't have a fucking choice where you go. The choices are go, go to jail, or flee the country. You can't just say no, in fact Canada's dealt with many people who came here from asylum because saying "I don't want to got to Iraq" didn't fly. So given the choice which would you do? Go, go to a military prison, or lose you're country and not be able to visit your family. Personally If it's me in that situation my ass is going and while there I'll do my damnedest to keep the civilians casualties as low as humanly possible. FYI before you say it the shit they did in Vietnam wouldn't fly either.

So you admit you are willing to murder innocent people to stay out of jail? Nice.

[TrueMetis]

So you admit you are willing to murder innocent people to stay out of jail? Nice.

You've never seen a military jail have you? In any event that's not what I said I whiling to go and fight while doing everything humanely possible to minimize collateral damage. You may not give a fuck about your family or country Tormund but I do. Admittedly I will never been in this situation because Canada doesn't force it's soldier to go but I can understand people making the choice.

[peterbound]

I'm trying to figure out if some of your posts are at dark attempt a humor. 'Murder innocent people or go to jail'?

Are you serious? Who the fuck do you think is over there shooting? Rambo? You think they wake up in the morning and say 'fuck it, i'm gonna kill some babies today?' Good grief man. Get it the fuck together.

Most are briefed on the mission of the day, routes, and attack strategies. If they encounter or have contact they engage. I understand that you think all they are doing over there is fucking shit up and killing innocent babies and moms, but most of those soldiers, Marines, airman, sailors don't want to kill anyone that doesn't need to be killed any more than you want them to.

For you to think other wise is border line insane.

A post brought up the 'Ear' guy. There is always some mentally unstable fucker running around with a gun. Shit happens. Last i checked there has only been one, i repeat, one recorded instance of that happening, and he's being dealt with pretty fucking harshly.

I hope that you guys have sat down and had these conversations face to face with a Solider or Marine that has been over there and actually had to deal with this stuff, and i hope that your tone is a little different, cus i couldn't imagine the internet tough guy tone going over well during the debate.

[TrueMetis]

I understand your frustration. But again, if you hypothetically joined the US military expecting that:

- American politics is not going to be a factor in how I wage death

- because the American people aren't stupid enough to have a war that I disagree with

- Therefore all the killing I do is just

... then I don't think I can really sympathize.

If someone volunteered for the military thinking that it would be like the commercials (a vocational school where you exercise a lot), then they were grossly naive.

As for what you do in reaction to this situation, what TM said.

I realize that you, or more specifically, US soldiers are doing what you think is the right thing, but I don't see it as morally justified. At all.

Alright I can agree with you if that was the case but I'm sure the vast majority of soldiers are that stupid. These soldiers aren't trying to kill innocents, in fact I'm sure most of them are doing their damnedest to avoid killing anybody. I doubt most of them do consider a lot of the shit morally justified but they're to busy trying not to die or end up nuts from it all to give it a lot of thought.

The arguments that justify WW2 are far more compelling than those that justify Gulf 2, so I'd say that yes, the collateral damage was avoidable because we had no reason to be there in the first place.

The basic plan was:

1. Fight nonexistent terrorists

2. Install Maliki and other corrupt leaders

3. ????

4. Profit

The WW2 arguements where

"hey let's bomb that city"

"but we don't need it"

"ya but it will show the Nazis who's boss"

While the justification for the deaths of civilians who died during strategic battles is exactly the same.

ETA most of the crazy shit soldiers are doing could be solved by cutting down the number of soldiers the U.S. Military admits and using the extra money to train soldiers better and make sure they are right in the head. The U.S. has some of the best military tech in the world but high school dropouts operating it, that's gonna cause some serious fuck ups.

[peterbound]

I don't think TM or I (but I don't want to misrepresent what TM says, and I don't think there's anyone else on our side, lol) are saying that American soldiers want to kill babies or anything. It's that American soldiers, despite what they want, are responsible for the deaths that they cause. They are not absolved because they were following orders.

The Nuremburg defense wasn't good enough for the Nazis, and it's not good enough for me, even if we are in America. We're not exceptional.

There have been rapes of civilians, cold blooded murders, sodomizing of prisoners, and other nasty things done by US soldiers.

I usually get the explanation that these are "outliers", and properly condemned by the military. Or, I get "shit happens". But again, the American army is not some exceptional organization that is absolved of responsibility just because it's American.

This is reasonable. I believe I had this very debate with ROTC candidates in my ethics class in college. Also, a fellow Resident Assistant (Marine) in my dorm also duked it out intellectually with me on this. I still talk to him and his wife occasionally, but I don't think he's at liberty to discuss this stuff now.

I appreciate your response, it was articulate and polite. Thank you for that.

However, speaking about this issue to a ROTC cadet is akin to talking about getting laid to a virgin, they have absolutely no frame of reference, other than you are talking shit about the organization that is paying for their college.

I would suggest going down to a VA hospital, local VFW, or just a bar outside of a base. I don't know where you are located, but it couldn't be far from a military instillation.

I agree that the military shouldn't be absolved, they need to provide better, more modern, more aggressive mental health care that focuses on getting the troop better, not getting the troop back into the fight. However, you can't condemn every person that has served, or continues to serve based on the 'outliers'

[TrueMetis]

See my reply to peterbound above. I am not arguing that everyone gets up in the morning, locks and loads, and goes out to kill them some Urakis.

Ok then.

This is true. Hell, we're the ones that made the war nuclear, and I've never bought that argument justifying it. But I hope you see where I'm coming from on the causus belli of Gulf II.

I haven't slept yet and know you're making me look up Latin, thanks.

While you're right that the act of going into Iraq was utter bullshit once in the U.S. couldn't just leave. It's like you break it you bought it, you topple a foreign government you're responsible for fixing it.

I haven't read this guy's book, but I think he had something to say about the actual practices of training soldiers. Something about the fact that in WW2, soldiers aimed to miss, whereas now they're indoctrinated to kill. I don't know much about it, though.

So it seems to my sleep deprived brain that he's saying that unless the war is just soldier can't fight it. Unfortunately for him that's totally subjective and most people aren't going to care much when you're getting shot at.

On the subject of soldiers aiming to miss, yes now they are most indoctrinated to kill but a key point is there were many time during the world wars were soldiers would stop fighting for say Christmas and hang out. Hard to shoot the guy you spent all last night drinking with while talking about friends families and girlfriend. While know the only time soldiers see the enemy they're going to kill each other, make it easier. A good movie about it is Joyeux Noël based on once such event that happened during ww1. And this type of thing happened a lot. one side actually warns the other of an impending artillery barrage and shelters them in their own trench. It is a great movie I highly recommend it.

[Lord O' Bones]

I understand your frustration. But again, if you hypothetically joined the US military expecting that:

- American politics is not going to be a factor in how I wage death

- because the American people aren't stupid enough to have a war that I disagree with

- Therefore all the killing I do is just

... then I don't think I can really sympathize.

Why not? I hope you don't consider me stupid, but that's exactly how I felt when I joined up. At the age of seventeen. As far as I know the vast majority of recruits are still under the age of 23. I think your standards are too high here.

Though I joined in 93. And I do have some concern about anyone who joined after say, 2003-2007.

I hope that you guys have sat down and had these conversations face to face with a Solider or Marine that has been over there and actually had to deal with this stuff, and i hope that your tone is a little different, cus i couldn't imagine the internet tough guy tone going over well during the debate.

Irony? :P

I don't think he's at liberty to discuss this stuff now.

IRONY!? :lol:

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You've never seen a military jail have you? In any event that's not what I said I whiling to go and fight while doing everything humanely possible to minimize collateral damage. You may not give a fuck about your family or country Tormund but I do. Admittedly I will never been in this situation because Canada doesn't force it's soldier to go but I can understand people making the choice.

Not a military one. Been to a couple of civilian ones though, does that count?

I don't think TM or I (but I don't want to misrepresent what TM says, and I don't think there's anyone else on our side, lol) are saying that American soldiers want to kill babies or anything. It's that American soldiers, despite what they want, are responsible for the deaths that they cause. They are not absolved because they were following orders.

The Nuremburg defense wasn't good enough for the Nazis, and it's not good enough for me, even if we are in America. We're not exceptional.

This is precisely what I mean.

While you're right that the act of going into Iraq was utter bullshit once in the U.S. couldn't just leave. It's like you break it you bought it, you topple a foreign government you're responsible for fixing it.

Bull crap. We've been toppling governments and not fixing them for more than 100 years.

[Lord O' Bones]

The U.S. has some of the best military tech in the world but high school dropouts operating it, that's gonna cause some serious fuck ups.

As I alluded to above, at some point in the last few years, it became clear to a great many high school graduates that the military, especially the half in green, was a really bad idea. And the Army and The Corps had to adjust standards to meet requirements.

[TrueMetis]

Not a military one. Been to a couple of civilian ones though, does that count?

Not even close.

Bull crap. We've been toppling governments and not fixing them for more than 100 years.

And how's that worked out for ya. You're not exactly a well liked country which is why you need such a large military.

ETA of course Canada helped with a couple of those and everyone seems pretty much fine with us, go figure.

[MinDonner]

"Completely unjustified" is debatable. Sure, many (most?) of the reasons put forward turned out to be bullshit. But Saddam was a monster, and getting rid of him was, IMO, the right thing to do. The failures since have been due to the lack of any kind of occupation/rebuilding strategy, poor understanding of the culture and a fair amount of corruption, but those are practical rather than ideological matters.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Haiti, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, others I'm forgetting, shit, even Germany: we toppled the Wiemar Republic, left the German people to abject poverty and hyperinflation, and got Adolf Hitler.

Go back further! We killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people in the Philippines back in 1899!

Not even close.

Ah, so you would know?

[Lord O' Bones]

If someone is in the National Guard, holding down a base in bumblefuck nowhere Nebraska, are they responsible for the deaths of innocents? Probably not.

This was actually a problem in the first few years of Iraq. It was cheaper to mobilize the Guard than move regular troops that would have to then be replaced by Guardsmen. Though I think it mainly affected Army/Air Force.

Did this get fixed? Am I misremembering?

[Lord O' Bones]

Bones,

I understand that people were duped by the military.

Then why the lack of sympathy?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Then why the lack of sympathy?

I have shitloads of sympathy. Some of those folks are my own family. Sympathy does not absolve responsibility though. We don't absolve people who were jumped into the Crips at 14 when they knock over a 7-11, no matter how sympathetic we feel.

[TrueMetis]

I have shitloads of sympathy. Some of those folks are my own family. Sympathy does not absolve responsibility though. We don't absolve people who were jumped into the Crips at 14 when they knock over a 7-11, no matter how sympathetic we feel.

And now were comparing soldier to gangs robbing places. Awesome.

[Lord O' Bones]

I have shitloads of sympathy. Some of those folks are my own family. Sympathy does not absolve responsibility though. We don't absolve people who were jumped into the Crips at 14 when they knock over a 7-11, no matter how sympathetic we feel.

I wasn't asking about responsibilty, but:

It can be argued that banging is a well known criminal activity by our social norms and mores, whereas serving in the military is largely considered anywhere from laudable to noble by same.

Counterpoint: Gang-banging could be considered necessary for survival to many participants whereas military service is not necessary to almost anyone.

I can see the possible merit of your comparison, but it would be a difficult comparison to make.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

And now were comparing soldier to gangs robbing places. Awesome.

Us and St. Augustine of Hippo...

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”

[MinDonner]

So, let me get this straight: the price tag of 100,000+ people dying as a result of bloodshed, violence, rape, killing, murder, beheadings and then many, many more innocents due to disease, lack of medical care, stress, suicide god knows what else was all justified because Saddam was a monster?

In fact, don't even respond to that. Try this: exactly what would be an unreasonable body count for toppling the Baathist government in your moral calculus? A million people? How many deaths are okay for you, hmmm? Or do you not make that kind of calculation?

No, I make this kind of calculation.

":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"