Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians? [Archive]

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Supercharts
Yep. And your point is?

that innocent civilians have died and will continue to die. The troops lives are more important than the civilians in these situations.

you also have to wonder what sort of training has been going on all this time.

Language barrier increases tensions
Apr 2
Michael Phillips, The Wall Street Journal

Second Lieutenant Isaac Moore and his 60-man platoon had been ordered to search villages for Saddam Hussein sympathisers.

That meant frisking farmers and ordering them to lie on the hot desert ground. It also meant breaking into mud huts and rifling through drawers in search of weapons to the din of a screaming baby and a sobbing woman, and all without knowing a single comforting Arabic phrase to calm them.

"All I know is 'Get down on the ground', and 'Stop, or I'll shoot'," Corporal Jeff Giesko, 22, told Lieutenant Moore as they prepared to drive their armoured assault vehicles into a village. None of the lieutenant's marines had memorised the more friendly greetings in their military-issue Arabic phrase cards.

ssibal

1st April 2003, 04:38 PM

They are soldiers not human shields, obviously their lives are valued more than civilians.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by ssibal
They are soldiers not human shields, obviously their lives are valued more than civilians.

why is it obvious? I thought they were going there to help the Iraqi people.

ssibal

1st April 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

why is it obvious? I thought they were going there to help the Iraqi people.

Well, there are millions of Iraqi civilians and a couple hundred thousand soldiers. If the civilians lives were valued more than soldiers then more soldiers would die and it would be much more difficult to accomplish their goals. But it is not as if the civilian lives are not valued at all, they are just valued less. We do this all the time. I value the lives of my family more than your life, but I value my life more than anyone else. I see nothing wrong with our valuing the soldiers more than the civilians.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Well, there are millions of Iraqi civilians and a couple hundred thousand soldiers. If the civilians lives were valued more than soldiers then more soldiers would die and it would be much more difficult to accomplish their goals. But it is not as if the civilian lives are not valued at all, they are just valued less. We do this all the time. I value the lives of my family more than your life, but I value my life more than anyone else. I see nothing wrong with our valuing the soldiers more than the civilians.

But very few of those civilians are suicide bombers. In fact, there has only been one case of a suicide bombing against soldiers so far. More civilians have been killed at checkpoints than soldiers.

Pyrrho

1st April 2003, 05:11 PM

It's absurd to second-guess the decisions of soldiers in the field of battle.

Yeah, yeah, I know, they don't belong there in the first place.

None of us was there. None of us knows what really happened. Until we've been faced with a similar situation and the need to make a life-or-death decision, we can't pass judgment. But just imagine for a minute: you're a soldier. Several of your fellow soldiers were recently killed by a car bomb exploded by the driver at a checkpoint. Heading toward your checkpoint is a van. It isn't stopping. What should you do?

Wolverine

1st April 2003, 05:17 PM

Trivia time!

See if you can identify the document from which this article originates:

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

Allied troops are committed to minimizing civilian casualties, and will undertake substantial measures to safeguard innocents in what has become a quite complicated theatre of operation. If the enemy would abide by rules of organized warfare (particularly as described in the article above), incidents yielding collateral damage could be substantially reduced if not curbed entirely.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
It's absurd to second-guess the decisions of soldiers in the field of battle.

Yeah, yeah, I know, they don't belong there in the first place.

None of us was there. None of us knows what really happened. Until we've been faced with a similar situation and the need to make a life-or-death decision, we can't pass judgment. But just imagine for a minute: you're a soldier. Several of your fellow soldiers were recently killed by a car bomb exploded by the driver at a checkpoint. Heading toward your checkpoint is a van. It isn't stopping. What should you do?

they are following orders in those cases. when in doubt about your safety, shoot. There is no need to second guess here, it is pretty straight forward.

where the problem comes is, when most civilians are innnocent, and there has only been one suicide bomb attack against americans, why is it the soldiers who get the benefit of the doubt and not the civilians? The war was supposed to be about them, wasn't it?

The Australian killed was a newsman. That is the only other suicide bombing I have read about.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Trivia time!

See if you can identify the document from which this article originates:

Allied troops are committed to minimizing civilian casualties, and will undertake substantial measures to safeguard innocents in what has become a quite complicated theatre of operation. If the enemy would abide by rules of organized warfare (particularly as described in the article above), incidents yielding collateral damage could be substantially reduced if not curbed entirely.

i am not arguing that the use of suicide bombers is a tactic that harms the Iraqi civilians, or that it is probably intended to make the US attack civilians. the point is, why is a civilian not given the benefit of the doubt. why does he have to die rather than the US army take a risk that, as is most probable, they are harmless.

what makes it much worse, though, is that it was only after the van was shot up that they thought that maybe they should be putting up a sign in Arabic advising that this was in fact a checkpoint, and that vehicles had to stop before it. Most soldiers apparently know almost no Arabic.

What is going on in the heads of those organising this war?

Skeptic

1st April 2003, 05:33 PM

you also have to wonder what sort of training has been going on all this time.

You know, AUP, your criticism of the "lack of training" of American troops in roadblocks would have been taken slightly more seriously if you had actually SEEN a military roadblock in your entire life, let alone been in one.

To a poor, unelightened peasant like myself, who actually HAS done quite a bit of roadblock work and military service, it seems that the soldiers' behavior was, if not absolutely and totally by the book, at least reasonable under the circumstances.

It never ceases to amaze me how you have such strong opinions about the "real causes" and "underlying reasons" of events you obviously know less than nothing about.

P.S.

Contrary to what you probably think, the phrase "These are not the droids you are looking for" is very rarely heard in military checkpoints. Trust me on that one.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
you also have to wonder what sort of training has been going on all this time.

You know, AUP, your criticism of the "lack of training" of American troops in roadblocks would have been taken slightly more seriously if you had actually SEEN a military roadblock in your entire life, let alone been in one.

To a poor, unelightened peasant like myself, who actually HAS done quite a bit of roadblock work and military service, it seems that the soldiers' behavior was, if not absolutely and totally by the book, at least reasonable under the circumstances.

It never ceases to amaze me how you have such strong opinions about the "real causes" and "underlying reasons" of events you obviously know less than nothing about.

P.S.

Contrary to what you probably think, the phrase "These are not the droids you are looking for" is very rarely heard in military checkpoints. Trust me on that one.

and i take it your checkpoints would have had signs up, in the language of those using the checkpoint, advising them to stop and wait for instructions. Those then manning the checkpoint would have a rudimentary grasp of the language to be able to advise those who had stopped what to do.

Skeptic

1st April 2003, 05:43 PM

the point is, why is a civilian not given the benefit of the doubt. why does he have to die rather than the US army take a risk that, as is most probable, they are harmless.

They ARE given the benefit of the doubt, as is rather obvious to anybody who knows anything about the war. If they weren't, there would have been tens of thousands of iraqi civilians killed by now, since thousands of them surely approach American soldiers and checkpoints every day.

The vast majority of Iraqi civilians, who do not behave suspiciously as they apporach American troops, are NOT shot at, needless to say. (OK, NOT "needless to say", due to people like you who are totally ignorant of the most basic facts about how the US Army behaves towards civilians.) Only the tiny minority who DO behave suspiciously--such as driving his bus into a military checkpoint, as in this case--MIGHT get shot at, and even that ONLY AFTER REPEATED WARNINGS.

You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you, AUP? But then again, that's hardly news.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
the point is, why is a civilian not given the benefit of the doubt. why does he have to die rather than the US army take a risk that, as is most probable, they are harmless.

They ARE given the benefit of the doubt, as is rather obvious to anybody who knows anything about the war. If they weren't, there would have been tens of thousands of iraqi civilians killed by now, since thousands of them surely approach American soldiers and checkpoints every day.

The vast majority of Iraqi civilians, who do not behave suspiciously as they apporach American troops, are NOT shot at, needless to say. (OK, NOT "needless to say", due to people like you who are totally ignorant of the most basic facts about how the US Army behaves towards civilians.) Only the tiny minority who DO behave suspiciously--such as driving his bus into a military checkpoint, as in this case--MIGHT get shot at, and even that ONLY AFTER REPEATED WARNINGS.

You just have no idea what you're talking about, do you, AUP? But then again, that's hardly news.

if you read the report, there were no repeated warnings, in this case. the soldier who was supposed to fire the warning shots may have been distracted by something else. And I still bet you had a sign up requesting vehicles to stop. Firing warning shots should not be the first message that a vehicle is required to stop.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 06:08 PM

yes i have no idea what i am talking about. Hemmer, however, seems to be asking the same questions.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/01/sprj.irq.generals.shepperd/index.html

HEMMER: There was a reporter from The Washington Post who apparently witnessed a good portion of what happened [Monday]. He says at the time there were no signs written in Arabic to indicate a military checkpoint was there. But that now is changing.

Would you see something like this have a ripple effect across every military checkpoint, and why not? Doesn't it not make sense to post the signs in Arabic and have some sort of command for the Arabic language if indeed something like this is approaching a situation there?

SHEPPERD: It makes a lot of sense to do that, and I think that's the type of local procedure that you will see invoked as they gain control of these southern areas and they have more and more traffic. It makes sense to have signs in Arabic. It makes sense to have barriers up. It also makes sense to have free Iraqi forces and interpreters there to talk to people in the vehicles, so you don't get in these type of situations. These are terrible, terrible situations and everybody's on razor edge about things that are taking place.

WildCat

1st April 2003, 06:38 PM

I accidentally posted this to the "Are US Soldiers Trigger-Happy" thread, but I meant it to be here:

So AUP, how do you explain this: (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962770347.html)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They were battling for a bridge when through the smoke they saw the elderly woman. "We've got to get her off that bridge," shouted Captain Chris Carter. He winced at the risks his men, engaged in a lightning-fast raid for this Euphrates River town, would have to take. The woman had tried to race across the bridge when the Americans arrived, but was caught in the crossfire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently US soldiers are also taking extraordinary risks to themselves to save innocent Iraqis. Will you then generalize this to stereotype all US soldiers as chivalrous heroes? Nah, that wouldn't jibe w/ your already well known bias against them. And while Iraqi civilian deaths often get widespread media coverage whether reporters were on the scene or not, situations like the one above only get reported in those rare instances it is actually witnessed by said reporters (because in general good news is no news). IMO, scenes like this are far more common than the unfortunate instances you seem to think prove your prejudices.

Edited to fix link.

Reginald

1st April 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

if you read the report, there were no repeated warnings, in this case. the soldier who was supposed to fire the warning shots may have been distracted by something else. And I still bet you had a sign up requesting vehicles to stop. Firing warning shots should not be the first message that a vehicle is required to stop.

Having heard that 4 of his comrades had been blown to bits by some fanatic in a car, and seeing another vehicle bearing down on him, WHAT do you think would be distracting this soldier?

The delicate way the sun glinted and danced off the eggshell finish of pvt Max's Kevlar helmet?

The soft sigh of the sand blowing across his boots, so vague and yet so provocative in his mind......oh that last night before leaving....

What do you want? Every soldier on the front to carry a set of signs so that they can quickly build the military equivalent of a Mc Donalds Drive Through?

You state that Soliders, rather than take a risk are gunning people down...

why does he have to die rather than the US army take a risk that, as is most probable, they are harmless.

So how do you tell the difference between a harmless one and a bad one? How many 1000's of times a day do you think that this benefit of the doubt is given?

I know! lets ask all the real bad guys to carry signs in English stating "I will blow you up" Or "I am not a harmless civilian". Maybe If that's a bit much to expect, they would be kind enough to fire a couple of rounds over the road block, just so we knew the score.

Let me tell you something, it may save you time in your anti-US crusade. Everything the troops do is being watched, if not by commanders then by the press. In the Free world in which we live, any acts that fall short of the stardards required will be prosecuted fully, as well you know. Your constant carping on about "Oh look at this injustice" and "Oh look at this disregard" are nothing more than single snippet propaganda excercises. Living as we do in our society, we do things to people who shoot anyone without good reason, unlike the bad guys who tell their people to do just that.

ssibal

1st April 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

But very few of those civilians are suicide bombers. In fact, there has only been one case of a suicide bombing against soldiers so far. More civilians have been killed at checkpoints than soldiers.

I agree, most civilians are probably not suicide bombers. As for more civilians being killed than soldiers, ask yourself what percentage of civilians that have passed through the checkpoints have been killed. I would say the number is less than 1%.

Skeptical Greg

1st April 2003, 07:08 PM

Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians?

Why don't you ask the next soldier you see, or one of their loved ones or family members..

Wolverine

1st April 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
(emphases mine)

i am not arguing that the use of suicide bombers is a tactic that harms the Iraqi civilians, or that it is probably intended to make the US attack civilians. the point is, why is a civilian not given the benefit of the doubt. why does he have to die rather than the US army take a risk that, as is most probable, they are harmless.

what makes it much worse, though, is that it was only after the van was shot up that they thought that maybe they should be putting up a sign in Arabic advising that this was in fact a checkpoint, and that vehicles had to stop before it. Most soldiers apparently know almost no Arabic.

What is going on in the heads of those organising this war?

The problem, sir, is (as usual) that you're relying upon second-hand, generalized information concerning this single incident (which, as you're aware, is still under investigation) in an attempt to paint all coalition forces with the same broad brush. As has already been noted by other posters, you're arbitrarily assuming that:

1) Iraqi civilians are not given the benefit of the doubt.

2) That no contingency was addressed prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom that a different language is spoken in that part of the world.

Ludicrous assertions on both counts.

The opinions of CNN Military Analyst Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd (Ret.), some of which are indeed worthwhile, are not a singlehandedly plausible foundation from which to solidify your approach. He is no more privy to the full data surrounding this tragic incident than you or I, and, again, it's far too early to draw a suitablly objective conclusion on this matter from the information we've been presented.

In no way am I attempting to justify the actions of the troops involved -- rather, I'm merely attempting to point out that your emotionally-fueled methodology and strident anti-US stance are demonstrated to be ultimately transparent in comparison to legitimate arguments presented with a sound respect for documented, factual information.

[inside joke]
I'm from Barthhhhhelona. I know no-theeng!
[/inside joke]

Skeptic

1st April 2003, 07:47 PM

I agree, most civilians are probably not suicide bombers. As for more civilians being killed than soldiers, ask yourself what percentage of civilians that have passed through the checkpoints have been killed. I would say the number is less than 1%.

1%? That would make the total number of Iraqis who passed a US checkpoint 700 in toto. 0.001% is probably more like the real figure, if that. But what did you expect, with such AWFUL American disregard for civilian lives--the evil American soldiers are obviously only giving the poor Iraqi civilians the benefit of the doubt 99.999+% of the time. Shocking, I tell ya'.

Of course, it COULD have been exactly 0%--if the US wouldn't mind losing a few of their stinking, useless soldiers to suicide bombers and truck drivers running them over once in a while. After all, what is more important--the lives of its soldiers, or avoiding the incisive ethical criticism from "A Unique Person"?

Oh, but wait. I forget. If the US policy in Iraq WAS just that, and American soldiers DID take casulaties from suicide bombers, etc., instead of protecting themselves, then this would not make "A Unique Person" happy with America. He would not post in appreciation of the American decision to stick to the principle of defending civilians even at the cost of their lives. Rather, it would only make "A Unique Person" post stuff about how the war is turning into a "quagmire", how it "proves" the Americans were all wrong, how Bush is a "murderer" for being responsible for the American casualties, etc., etc.

One of the main reasons people like AUP and other "activists" are mostly ignored is that it is rather obvious to everybody that the goal--slinging mud at America and "proving" how "awful" it is--was determined in advance, and the rest is filled in to support the desired conclusion as an afterthought.

No matter WHAT America does--whether it declares war or doesn't; takes casualties for not stopping suspicious civilians or inflicts casualties by stopping them; assassinates Saddam or fails to do so--AUP will be there five minute later, with an "analysis" of the "real" nefarious and evil reasons the US did it, and bewailing the fact that the evil US didn't do the exact opposite. At least, he would do so until the US changes its policy and DOES do the exact opposite, in which case AUP will change its tune and blame it for doing THAT, as well.

AUP's real position is "whatever the US does is wrong--I don't know why yet, but I'm sure I could think of SOMETHING."

1st April 2003, 07:47 PM

Civilians life is more important because they learn to live.
Soldiers learn to kill. Militaries are stupids sock puppets of a political system.

I give you 5 stars.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine

The problem, sir, is (as usual) that you're relying upon second-hand, generalized information concerning this single incident (which, as you're aware, is still under investigation) in an attempt to paint all coalition forces with the same broad brush. As has already been noted by other posters, you're arbitrarily assuming that:

1) Iraqi civilians are not given the benefit of the doubt.

in this particular case, they most definitely were not given the benefit of the doubt.

2) That no contingency was addressed prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom that a different language is spoken in that part of the world.

did you read the link. A marine who knows only two phrases, from a leaflet. This clearly indicates a pretty poor training for learning a language, even at a basic level

Ludicrous assertions on both counts.

The opinions of CNN Military Analyst Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd (Ret.), some of which are indeed worthwhile, are not a singlehandedly plausible foundation from which to solidify your approach. He is no more privy to the full data surrounding this tragic incident than you or I, and, again, it's far too early to draw a suitablly objective conclusion on this matter from the information we've been presented.

In no way am I attempting to justify the actions of the troops involved -- rather, I'm merely attempting to point out that your emotionally-fueled methodology and strident anti-US stance are demonstrated to be ultimately transparent in comparison to legitimate arguments presented with a sound respect for documented, factual information.

[inside joke]
I'm from Barthhhhhelona. I know no-theeng!
[/inside joke]

I have not said that the troops in this incident, (as opposed to the A10 attack of the scimitars), were in violation of their orders. What I am saying is that their training and facilities were clearly inadequate for the task they were assigned. The person driving the car appeared to have no indication given that he was even approaching a checkpoint. The warning shots, which were the only means of indicating this was a check point, were not fired in time.

In the case of the A10, there was a clear case of a breach of orders. If that was accidental or not, I don't know. However, he was operating, in that case, in an area that he was not supposed to be, and firing upon vehicles, clearly marked with equipment supplied by the US itself, to identify a friendly.

As for the stridently anti-US stance, much of this is taken directly from the British, the allies of the US. Look around, there are reports out there that don't toe the 'patriotic' line, that state things as they are.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I agree, most civilians are probably not suicide bombers. As for more civilians being killed than soldiers, ask yourself what percentage of civilians that have passed through the checkpoints have been killed. I would say the number is less than 1%.

1%? That would make the total number of Iraqis who passed a US checkpoint 700 in toto. 0.001% is probably more like the real figure, if that.

Of course, it COULD have been exactly 0%--if the US wouldn't mind losing a few of their stinking, useless soldiers to suicide bombers and truck drivers running them over once in a while.

After all, what is more important--the lives of its soldiers, or avoiding the incisive ethical criticism from "A Unique Person"?

which is the point of the thread. are the civilians more important or the troops in this situation? given that the military are not operating a checkpoint that meets basic requirements of even identifying itself as such, I would say that the civilians should be given the benefit of the doubt in every case. The car should not have been fired upon.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allies split over battle for hearts and minds
April 2 2003

A schism over tactics is opening between the US and Britain. Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy report from Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar.

Cracks are appearing between British and American commanders that have serious implications for operations in Iraq.

Senior British military officers are dismayed by what they see as the failure of US troops to try to fight the battle for hearts and minds. They are also appalled by reports that US marines killed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, as they seized bridges outside Nasiriyah in southern Iraq.

"You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming us with open arms," a senior British defence source said on Monday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...8962756690.html

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Why don't you ask the next soldier you see, or one of their loved ones or family members..

well, why don't you ask the next civilian, or one of their loved ones or family members.

WildCat

1st April 2003, 07:55 PM

This could be nonsense (and I'm well aware of the "48 hr Rule" to this war), but the Chicago NBC affiliate 10 pm news just reported that a Shiite cleric (no name given) in southern Iraq has claimed that the women on the van were forced to go on it, their husbands had been rounded up and were told they would be shot if the women didn't go along. The driver (the only real volunteer for this scheme) was told to drive at the troops and not to stop, in order to force the troops to fire on them and thus give Saddam & Sons a propaganda coup.
Let's see how this story unfolds, but it would explain a few things, especially:
- Why the driver failed to stop. I don't care what language you speak, a group of armed soldiers pointing guns at you and blocking the road means "STOP" in any language.
- Why it was conveniently filled w/ women and children.

Oh well, like I said it's pretty sketchy and may turn out to be bogus.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

Having heard that 4 of his comrades had been blown to bits by some fanatic in a car, and seeing another vehicle bearing down on him, WHAT do you think would be distracting this soldier?

The delicate way the sun glinted and danced off the eggshell finish of pvt Max's Kevlar helmet?

The soft sigh of the sand blowing across his boots, so vague and yet so provocative in his mind......oh that last night before leaving....

What do you want? Every soldier on the front to carry a set of signs so that they can quickly build the military equivalent of a Mc Donalds Drive Through?

if you read the link, they were planning to get a sign put up pretty quick. Now, they realised themselves what had to be done. I would have expected their planners to anticipate this before the killings.

You state that Soliders, rather than take a risk are gunning people down...

which is what happened.

So how do you tell the difference between a harmless one and a bad one? How many 1000's of times a day do you think that this benefit of the doubt is given?

you can't. So, who gets to make the choice, who gets the benefit of the doubt?

I know! lets ask all the real bad guys to carry signs in English stating "I will blow you up" Or "I am not a harmless civilian". Maybe If that's a bit much to expect, they would be kind enough to fire a couple of rounds over the road block, just so we knew the score.

Let me tell you something, it may save you time in your anti-US crusade. Everything the troops do is being watched, if not by commanders then by the press. In the Free world in which we live, any acts that fall short of the stardards required will be prosecuted fully, as well you know. Your constant carping on about "Oh look at this injustice" and "Oh look at this disregard" are nothing more than single snippet propaganda excercises. Living as we do in our society, we do things to people who shoot anyone without good reason, unlike the bad guys who tell their people to do just that.

If you read the links, the British appear to be much more skilled at dealing with civilians. If they can do it, why can't the americans?

Reginald

1st April 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

which is the point of the thread. are the civilians more important or the troops in this situation? given that the military are not operating a checkpoint that meets basic requirements of even identifying itself as such, I would say that the civilians should be given the benefit of the doubt in every case. The car should not have been fired upon.

No, the point of this thread, like so many of the others you post is to simply hammer home your point of view, which to be frank, I am in no doubt about.

You show absolutely no evidence of being open to moving your possition at all. Despite many reasonable arguements being put before you.

Much as I am amused at your attempts to divert the thread .....

I have not said that the troops in this incident, (as opposed to the A10 attack of the scimitars), were in violation of their orders. What I am saying is that their training and facilities were clearly inadequate for the task they were assigned. The person driving the car appeared to have no indication given that he was even approaching a checkpoint. The warning shots, which were the only means of indicating this was a check point, were not fired in time.

...... to something entirely different.

I cant even claim that your arguements fall on deaf ears, I see no evidence here that others would not be willing to alter their view points, given a strong enough counter arguement to their own.

Its just that you dont make a strong case. Your sources are limited in the extreme (I would suggest you read around more).

You have an unreasonable expectation IMHO with regard to the liguistic skills required in this theatre, I feel that even if the US military consisted of fluent linguists, then you would simply find some other area to launch your attack.

If you honestly dont want to change your opinion, and that is your perogative, why post at all?

schplurg

1st April 2003, 08:31 PM

AUP:
But very few of those civilians are suicide bombers. In fact, there has only been one case of a suicide bombing against soldiers so far.
Incorrect. Many vehicles have been stopped at checkpoints and other locations where bombs were found inside the vehicles. Some of these people were shot first, some were "apprehended".

I know it's bad form not to provide links here but I haven't found the article yet. I saw a listing yesterday of many attempts by motorists to blow up checkpoints and soldiers. There was an incident with a taxi cab, among about 9 -10 others. It was in an article describing the women and children/shooting incident. I am still searching for the article, I thought I saw it mentioned in an Aussie news site (The Age?). Maybe someone else saw this too?

I've spent half an hour looking. I'll keep trying but I'm posting this as is. Someone help me out here?! :)

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

No, the point of this thread, like so many of the others you post is to simply hammer home your point of view, which to be frank, I am in no doubt about.

You show absolutely no evidence of being open to moving your possition at all. Despite many reasonable arguements being put before you.

Much as I am amused at your attempts to divert the thread .....

...... to something entirely different.

I cant even claim that your arguements fall on deaf ears, I see no evidence here that others would not be willing to alter their view points, given a strong enough counter arguement to their own.

Its just that you dont make a strong case. Your sources are limited in the extreme (I would suggest you read around more).

You have an unreasonable expectation IMHO with regard to the liguistic skills required in this theatre, I feel that even if the US military consisted of fluent linguists, then you would simply find some other area to launch your attack.

If you honestly dont want to change your opinion, and that is your perogative, why post at all?

as shown in links, the british troops themselves feel that the US is not at all going about 'winning the hearts and minds' in the right way.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962791262.html

Human shield tells of civilian rage
Wednesday 2 April 2003, 10:05 AM

Coalition forces faced grave danger because they had lost the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqi people devastated by war, Australian human shield Donna Mulhearn said.

The 34-year-old fled Baghdad on Sunday after spending six weeks as a human shield at a food silo north of the city.

She said the Iraqi people had asked her to tell the Australian government to stop the war.

"They've had enough. The Iraqi people are very, very angry," she told ABC radio from her hotel in Jordan.

"What I witnessed in the last 10 days in Baghdad was a definite shift in attitude.

"Iraqi families who are quite passive or quite neutral towards America and quite indifferent to (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein, they now are fully, fully supportive of the Iraqi government.

"They have developed this anger and bitterness towards the US that did not exist a week ago.

"If America is having a battle for the hearts and minds (of Iraqi people) then they are losing, big time."

Ms Mulhearn said bombing raids were killing children and destroying families, and creating chaos and suffering "that you would not believe".

now, you can have a go at me. But the Iraqis out there are a different matter. And I thought that from the point of GWB, they were a large part of what this war was all about. If that was so, there appears to have been little consideration for them at all, beyond thinking that they would all be welcoming the troops with open arms.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by schplurg

Incorrect. Many vehicles have been stopped at checkpoints and other locations where bombs were found inside the vehicles. Some of these people were shot first, some were "apprehended".

I know it's bad form not to provide links here but I haven't found the article yet. I saw a listing yesterday of many attempts by motorists to blow up checkpoints and soldiers. There was an incident with a taxi cab, among about 9 -10 others. It was in an article describing the women and children/shooting incident. I am still searching for the article, I thought I saw it mentioned in an Aussie news site (The Age?). Maybe someone else saw this too?

I've spent half an hour looking. I'll keep trying but I'm posting this as is. Someone help me out here?! :)

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/31/1048962699213.htm

was this it?

you are right. there are more incidents. I was thinking of the actual deaths caused by the suicide bombers.

Reginald

1st April 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

which is what happened.

What in EVERY case that occurs??

you can't. So, who gets to make the choice, who gets the benefit of the doubt?

The guy who stands a chance of being blown to bits might be a good start, working within the guidelines given to him. Its a dynamic thing.

If you read the links, the British appear to be much more skilled at dealing with civilians. If they can do it, why can't the americans? [/B]

Because the southern end of the "front" is a completely different place to the areas the US are concentrated in, when the major cities are under some control, you will find the methodologies converge.

I dont bite at this US vs UK stuff BTW.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Reginald

The guy who stands a chance of being blown to bits might be a good start, working within the guidelines given to him. Its a dynamic thing.

exactly. the guy with the gun gets the right to shoot the unarmed civilian if he is in doubt. now, does this make it right?

Reginald

1st April 2003, 08:52 PM

And may I add just to show you how I think you see the world...

Look at the two options you give on the Poll....

The soldiers...
The civilians...

How about an option...Both ?

See....... black and white, right and wrong.

Actually the choices should be Yes and No, given the wording of the question, but in the persuit of fairness I admit that is me being pedantic.

Reginald

1st April 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

exactly. the guy with the gun gets the right to shoot the unarmed civilian if he is in doubt. now, does this make it right?

I didnt say the word shoot! I said the right to decide, as in decide what course of action to take.

Why do you always try to make it sound like these people are being shot against a wall?

You are doing it again, why is the only course of action in your opinion to gun people down, dont you think there are other courses of action, disabling the vehicle at a safe distance for example? You are consistantly showing exactly the kind of "set in stone" intransigence that I have accused you of, see no alternative, no middle ground, they either kill or be killed (or not).

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Reginald
And may I add just to show you how I think you see the world...

Look at the two options you give on the Poll....

The soldiers...
The civilians...

How about an option...Both ?

See....... black and white, right and wrong.

Actually the choices should be Yes and No, given the wording of the question, but in the persuit of fairness I admit that is me being pedantic.

yes, they are both important, but in this particular situation, the decision has been made that if the troops are in doubt, they are allowed to shoot at possibly innocent civilians.

Now, I didn't make this war, or the checkpoint situation.

Wolverine

1st April 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
did you read the link.

I read the URL in question completely, long before you cited it on this forum.

A marine who knows only two phrases, from a leaflet.

A Marine, recognizing that the vast majority of those assigned to this theatre of operation are present not for foreign language skills, but their ability to engage enemy forces in combat.

This clearly indicates a pretty poor training for learning a language, even at a basic level

Please demonstrate which infantrymen from every organized front-line fighting force the globe over are fully-versed in the language(s) of enemy forces and/or the civilian populous, or, that basic language skills are not a consideration for our forces fighting in foreign lands.

I have not said that the troops in this incident, (as opposed to the A10 attack of the scimitars), were in violation of their orders.

Please demonstrate where the pilot involved in the A-10 incident was in violation of his orders. Again, you're operating under the premise of assumption rather than fact.

What I am saying is that their training and facilities were clearly inadequate for the task they were assigned.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this for certain. You are speaking from your own opinion, and are attempting to present that as incontrovertible fact.

The person driving the car appeared to have no indication given that he was even approaching a checkpoint. The warning shots, which were the only means of indicating this was a check point, were not fired in time.

This absolutely couldn't be further from the truth, which, if you'd read the source material as thoroughly as you'd prompted others to do, you might understand. Where in the article are you able to magically surmise that the van's driver had no idea there was a checkpoint ahead, or that they were required to stop? As to whether or not there were signs posted in Arabic or otherwise has yet to be determined from verifiable sources. Rather than being able to evaluate the full scope of influences involved at the time which ultimately yielded the order to fire upon said target, you choose to base your assertion on circumstantial evidence from second or third-party sources and analysis, which at this point are, for all practical purposes, irrelevant, and unverifiable.

In the case of the A10, there was a clear case of a breach of orders.

Provide evidence to support your assertion that the pilot in question violated his orders. While you're at it, demonstrate how that, being a separate incident, is relevant to the checkpoint incident which we're presently discussing.

If that was accidental or not, I don't know.

Then how can you possibly conclude or allege that the incident "was a clear case of a breach of orders?"

However, he was operating, in that case, in an area that he was not supposed to be, and firing upon vehicles, clearly marked with equipment supplied by the US itself, to identify a friendly.

You don't know, yet you're somehow attempting to to present an assertion that demonstrates otherwise? Make up your mind!

As for the stridently anti-US stance, much of this is taken directly from the British, the allies of the US. Look around, there are reports out there that don't toe (sic) the 'patriotic' line, that state things as they are.

If you are attempting to deny your efforts to demonize the United States on numerous issues, military and otherwise, I would submit that you should take the time necessary to author a much more conclusive and convincing whitewashing than you've presented here.

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine

I read the URL in question completely, long before you cited it on this forum.

A Marine, recognizing that the vast majority of those assigned to this theatre of operation are present not for foreign language skills, but their ability to engage enemy forces in combat.

precisely my point. When we are talking about a large civilian presence in this war, which is as much a battle for hearts and minds as anything else, you might want to be able to say more than 'Stop, or I'll shoot', or 'Drop your weapons'. 'Hello' would be a good start.

It's not my fault there are civilians in a war zone, but you ignore that fact to your own peril.

Notice how he learned the phrases he knows. He has a booklet with phrases in it, of which he has taught himself two. Now, that is not proper training. And I would venture to guess that being able to speak a simple conversation with an Iraqi would be an incredibly cheap and effective way of saving lives. It is not as if this war hasn't been in planning for years, or that the US hasn't suspected it might be fighting in Arabic lands for a number of years either.

evildave

1st April 2003, 10:06 PM

It's all according to who you ask:

Civilian: Mine.

Soldier: Mine.

Commander of Soldier: Soldier.

Family of Civilian: Civilian.

Family of Soldier: Soldier.

Media: "Who cares? Let's see the blood spatter for the camera! BOOM!"

schplurg

1st April 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/31/1048962699213.htm

was this it?

you are right. there are more incidents. I was thinking of the actual deaths caused by the suicide bombers.
What's the difference?!

You make it sound like the soldiers' fears were misplaced since there was only one checkpoint bombing, when in fact there have many other attempts! They don't sound so 'trigger happy' when these other incidents are taken into account.

How can you dismiss these other attempts simply because they were unsuccessful at killing the troops! If someone tried to kill me 10 times and was unsuccessful, I'd sure as hell be ready for that 11th one! The fact that there have been other attempts is very important, you can't just ignore it. Bad bad bad!

a_unique_person

1st April 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by schplurg

What's the difference?!

You make it sound like the soldiers' fears were misplaced since there was only one checkpoint bombing, when in fact there have many other attempts! They don't sound so 'trigger happy' when these other incidents are taken into account.

How can you dismiss these other attempts simply because they were unsuccessful at killing the troops! If someone tried to kill me 10 times and was unsuccessful, I'd sure as hell be ready for that 11th one! The fact that there have been other attempts is very important, you can't just ignore it. Bad bad bad!

No. I am trying to say, why should the soldiers be able to shoot at a vehicle they suspect? Why are their lives more important than the lives of probably innocent civilians?

Wolverine

1st April 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

precisely my point. When we are talking about a large civilian presence in this war, which is as much a battle for hearts and minds as anything else, you might want to be able to say more than 'Stop, or I'll shoot', or 'Drop your weapons'. 'Hello' would be a good start.

It's not my fault there are civilians in a war zone, but you ignore that fact to your own peril.

Notice how he learned the phrases he knows. He has a booklet with phrases in it, of which he has taught himself two. Now, that is not proper training. And I would venture to guess that being able to speak a simple conversation with an Iraqi would be an incredibly cheap and effective way of saving lives. It is not as if this war hasn't been in planning for years, or that the US hasn't suspected it might be fighting in Arabic lands for a number of years either.

Your rebuttal ignores the vast majority of relevant, legitimate points which I took the time to address while parsing your previous comments.

Rather than making a feeble attempt to unify our respective comments, at least have the decency to offer a suitable reply which covers all points, from an objective stance.

If you are unable (or unwilling) to do so, I can only conclude that your inherent bias, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, governs your intent.

Needless to say, that is not representative of the behavior of true skeptics.

crocodile deathroll

2nd April 2003, 12:18 AM

With a toss of a coin, I voted civilian, but I think they are both the same. But I remember it used to be argued that a police officers or a prison guards life was worth more than other people and the murder of a police officer or prison guard was the only crime considered to be a capital offence.
I could not see why the taking the life of a police officer in the course of his/her duty the would be more valuable than other emergency service personal like fireman or ambulance medics in the course of their duty.

Wolverine

2nd April 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
But I remember it used to be argued that a police officers (sic) or a prison guards (sic) life was worth more than other people and the murder of a police officer or prison guard was the only crime considered to be a capital offence.

Source, please.

schplurg

2nd April 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by schplurg:
What's the difference?!

You make it sound like the soldiers' fears were misplaced since there was only one checkpoint bombing, when in fact there have many other attempts! They don't sound so 'trigger happy' when these other incidents are taken into account.

How can you dismiss these other attempts simply because they were unsuccessful at killing the troops! If someone tried to kill me 10 times and was unsuccessful, I'd sure as hell be ready for that 11th one! The fact that there have been other attempts is very important, you can't just ignore it. Bad bad bad!
Originally posted by a_unique_person

No. I am trying to say, why should the soldiers be able to shoot at a vehicle they suspect? Why are their lives more important than the lives of probably innocent civilians?
Ok then, good question.

First, a judgement must be made on the "probably innocent civilians". I don't know the ratio of civilian vs "terrorist" vehicles at any given checkpoint, so I don't know if they indeed are "probably" civilians. Without knowing how the checkpoints are laid out, what they look like, and with the minimal and contradictory bits of info about this story, I can't answer that question.

It's a judgement call I guess. If my buddies were killed in this manner a few days earlier, I might be thinking it's either me or them. But I'd be very reluctant to just open fire. Then again, if I were the civilian, I would think twice about speeding through a military checkpoint in the first place. That's just plain stupid.

My answer - I don't know. When's the last time you saw that answer given here ;)

Incidentally, I didn't vote on this thread.

Lemastre

2nd April 2003, 04:38 AM

This is a general philosophical and subjective question not specific to war or Iraq, although your way of posing it and the answers you are receiving are about the Iraqi invasion. Maybe each person must reach his own answer depending on the situation. If you’re in battle, you’d very likely prefer that your soldiers survive over anybody from the other side. We don't want to kill civilians, but in modern war, civilians die.

Obviously, anyone’s life is important and of great value to him, of less value to his friends and family, and of little interest to strangers, in peacetime or in war. We don't wish anyone of good will to be dead, but we don't mourn strangers very long. Whether a person is military or not is probably irrelevant in this. In the U.S., we generally value the idea of human life quite highly, but we can legally end lives for certain antisocial behaviors, while at the same time going to great expense to prolong life in the sick and dying.

crocodile deathroll

2nd April 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Source, please.

It was only argued on talk back radio back here. We have not got capital punishment here in this country and I can recall some outspoked talkback radio hosts arguing for its reintroducion especially in the case of prison guards and police.
Here is one source I found (http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research21.html)and I did not have to look very far. The last guy hanged in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967 who was accused of killing a prison guard

I do not believe in is personally because one it is irreversable and two it just serves to turn murders into martyrs

Supercharts

2nd April 2003, 05:26 AM

Ronald Ryan is a martyr in Austraila?

crocodile deathroll

2nd April 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Supercharts
Ronald Ryan is a martyr in Austraila?

Oddly enough Ned Kelly definitely is, and he murdered three policeman

Supercharts

2nd April 2003, 06:02 AM

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

Skeptic

2nd April 2003, 07:01 AM

in this particular case, they most definitely were not given the benefit of the doubt

Even if true (which it probably isn't), so what? Don't you KNOW that generalizing about people from individual cases is bad?

Apparently, that rule only applies when yet another suicide bombing/terrorist group makes people wonder if Islam really is a "religion of peace". Then, AUP is quick to point out the racism and stereotyping of "generalizing to all Muslims from a handful of fanatics".

When, however, American soldiers kill civilians BY MISTAKE in what is obviously a VERY atypical case, AUP instantly generalizes that this proves "Americans" in general (and the armed forces in particular) "disregard the lives of civilians", "are untrained", etc.

As usual, AUP displays his double standard in favor of Saddam&co. and against the US and its allies. Everything Saddam does is excusable, or at least should "not be generalized", while everything the US does is "proof" of its essential perfidity.

Skeptic

2nd April 2003, 07:11 AM

Your whining about the "lack of training" because most soldiers don't speak Arabic shows how little you know about the situation, AUP.

In the vast majority of wars, the soldiers on both sides don't speak each others' language. The army can hardly spend literally years teaching every soldier the language of every nation the country might come in conflict with. This is logistically impossible, for a variety of obvious reasons, which you nevertheless ignore because you don't know the first thing about the armed forced.

Apparently, your idea of "teaching the army Arabic" is that it is like a videogame: you just click on the army units and select "learn enemy language" for a +2 bonus in communications and a 30% reduction in enemies civilians killed, all for the price of 500 energy units. Why haven't Rumsfeld thought of THAT?

If not knowing Arabic is "lack of training", I suppose the fact that most US soldiers in WWII didn't speak German or Japanese (or, later, Korean or Vietnamese) is some sort of "lack of training" as well, and possibly a war crime of some sort. I'm sure you'll enlightened us about how evil the US was in THAT situation as well soon.

At any rate, there is no need; those who need to know arabic (intelligence officers, for example) do. Communication in roadblocks (or similar situations) is easily done using international signs (such as putting your hand out in a "stop" sign, or shooting in the air if necessary, etc.) or using a few basic words learned "on the job" within an hour or so.

It's perfectly obvious to everybody what behavior might get you shot at, and simply avoiding this behavior is enough--as the thousands of non-English-speaking civilians who pass non-Arabic-speaking US soldiers every day without the least harm attest. Don't run your car into a roadblock in full speed and you'll be OK, most likely.

Knowing Arabic wouldn't have helped in this case, anyway; it was (apparently) an accident caused by the driver losing control, not by his lack of understanding of what the soldiers wanted--you don't need to be told in your native language that running over slodiers might be dangerous to your health. He already knew that.

Barkhorn1x

2nd April 2003, 07:11 AM

Here is how he meant to phrase the poll;

The [imperialist terrorist stooge] soldiers =
The [poor benighted innocent] Civilians =

;)

Again, A_U_P, your motives are soooooooooooooo transparent that attempting a meaningful dailog w/ you is as pointless as it is impossible.

BTW, I remember you now from the Infidels board (can't imagine what fun you and your buds over there must be having). I had to leave that board due to an utter lack of context or balance on the part of 99% of the posters there.

Back to the topic --- People (soldiers, civilians) die in a war - can you fathom that?????

Ironically, w/o the intervention of coalition forces, the only people who would STILL be dying in Iraq would be civilians!

Barkhorn.