Massacre by US Troops in Iraq

[LeazesMag 0]

Incidentally, why do you think the lower-rank soldiers who murdered children in cold blood should be let off, and only the officers charged?

143729[/snapback]

 

 

Because of this and this.

 

The peer pressure within a squadron will be immense. It's the ranking officers job to set the boundaries of what's acceptable.

143736[/snapback]

 

Well I'll wait until there's a full trial before I make my judgements but personally it sounds to me like they went on a rampage. If that was authorised at the top, then the whole lot can cop it, if it was made at an individual level then its plainly a matter of personal prosecution.

 

Incidentally, I doubt a few psychological experiments on peer pressure are going to stand up in court. Would you murder a family, even under direct orders? And do you admit you are now condoning the actions at the level of the soldiers involved?

143742[/snapback]

 

Chain of command.

 

If the upper people gave the order, or found incompetent, they will cop it not the soldiers.

Edited June 1, 2006 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

I fail to see the relevence with regard to this particular incident Leazes. I notice you've avoided what you were asked earlier too. To widen the debate though, you were in favour of pulling out about a week ago, now things have gone tits up. Don’t you realise that would make things even worse than they are now (given life in Iraq is already worse than it was before Saddam was deposed)?

143765[/snapback]

 

sorry Alex, unlike you I don't have time to spend all day on here

[Guest alex]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

[LeazesMag 0]

Also, how come the US couldn't even concoct, let alone find, any evidence of Chemical / Nuclear weapons development?

143767[/snapback]

 

so you think there wasn't any ??????

[Guest alex]

I fail to see the relevence with regard to this particular incident Leazes. I notice you've avoided what you were asked earlier too. To widen the debate though, you were in favour of pulling out about a week ago, now things have gone tits up. Don’t you realise that would make things even worse than they are now (given life in Iraq is already worse than it was before Saddam was deposed)?

143765[/snapback]

 

sorry Alex, unlike you I don't have time to spend all day on here

143788[/snapback]

How convenient

[Guest alex]

Also, how come the US couldn't even concoct, let alone find, any evidence of Chemical / Nuclear weapons development?

143767[/snapback]

 

so you think there wasn't any ??????

143790[/snapback]

Not when the last invasion took place. Unless you have evidence to the contrary and know more than the CIA etc.

[LeazesMag 0]

We should never had gone in in the first place.

 

But hindsight is a wonderful thing

143518[/snapback]

 

No hindsight needed to be involved in this one.

143566[/snapback]

 

so you think that Saddam should still be torturing, murdering and terrorising his own people...and breaking the terms of the original surrender thereby sticking 2 fingers up at the world, along with developing chemical weapons and potentially nuclear ones

 

You're like chemical Ali. You will deny Iran are a danger to the world when they are nuking Israel in the backround.

143762[/snapback]

 

As usual, you are grossly oversimplify things Leazes. To cut a long story short though, there is no way in hell I would have gone into Iraq, as Hussein posed no threat whatsoever. The weapons inspectors knew this, and they said it at the time, to anyone who would listen, and lo and behold, nothing was found. Not a single bit of evidence of WMD.

 

I would also avoid going into Iran at all costs. I take it you want to invade do you?

143769[/snapback]

 

 

Over-simplifying ? Odd, but I think you spend too much time going too deeply and complaining about things which are sadly inevitable, and not just this particular thread. I think if you are prepared to allow a beaten dictator time to regroup, as well as flout his surrender terms, you have very little idea of the the value and importance of exercising authority. Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were flouting the terms of surrender. This ALONE, is reason enough to go in and finish off what should admittedly have been done the first time.

 

Sorry if that is a bit too basic for you, while you sit and work out excuses otherwise.

 

As Saddam had already gassed his own people, it is absolutely stupid to suggest he did not have chemical weapons at least, and the capacity and will to develop further, unless you just think he decided not to bother out of the goodness of his heart.

[LeazesMag 0]

I fail to see the relevence with regard to this particular incident Leazes. I notice you've avoided what you were asked earlier too. To widen the debate though, you were in favour of pulling out about a week ago, now things have gone tits up. Don’t you realise that would make things even worse than they are now (given life in Iraq is already worse than it was before Saddam was deposed)?

143765[/snapback]

 

What I find hilarious is Leazes playing the humanitarian card. What a joke.

143771[/snapback]

 

Aye ? As you don't know me, thats a bit odd. I'm not a hand wringing do gooder though, I'll admit that much.

[Happy Face 29]

Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were flouting the terms of surrender.

143795[/snapback]

 

Genuine question for you LM. How did they flout?

 

Weren't they fully co-operating with weapons inspectors who'd found nothing and wanted more time which Georgey Bush wouldn't give them.

[LeazesMag 0]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

143789[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Probably fantastically naive, obeying orders, and panicking.

 

Think its daft to suggest Iraq didn't have chemical weapons, when they had gassed their own people. Do you still believe in fairies as well ?

[Guest alex]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

143789[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Probably fantastically naive, obeying orders, and panicking.

 

Think its daft to suggest Iraq didn't have chemical weapons, when they had gassed their own people. Do you still believe in fairies as well ?

143798[/snapback]

I said they didn't have them at the time of the last invasion, not that they never had them. Feel free to supply any evidence you have to the contrary though. Like I said though, you'll be outdoing the CIA

[Renton 21643]

We should never had gone in in the first place.

 

But hindsight is a wonderful thing

143518[/snapback]

 

No hindsight needed to be involved in this one.

143566[/snapback]

 

so you think that Saddam should still be torturing, murdering and terrorising his own people...and breaking the terms of the original surrender thereby sticking 2 fingers up at the world, along with developing chemical weapons and potentially nuclear ones

 

You're like chemical Ali. You will deny Iran are a danger to the world when they are nuking Israel in the backround.

143762[/snapback]

 

As usual, you are grossly oversimplify things Leazes. To cut a long story short though, there is no way in hell I would have gone into Iraq, as Hussein posed no threat whatsoever. The weapons inspectors knew this, and they said it at the time, to anyone who would listen, and lo and behold, nothing was found. Not a single bit of evidence of WMD.

 

I would also avoid going into Iran at all costs. I take it you want to invade do you?

143769[/snapback]

 

 

Over-simplifying ? Odd, but I think you spend too much time going too deeply and complaining about things which are sadly inevitable, and not just this particular thread. I think if you are prepared to allow a beaten dictator time to regroup, as well as flout his surrender terms, you have very little idea of the the value and importance of exercising authority. Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were flouting the terms of surrender. This ALONE, is reason enough to go in and finish off what should admittedly have been done the first time.

 

Sorry if that is a bit too basic for you, while you sit and work out excuses otherwise.

 

As Saddam had already gassed his own people, it is absolutely stupid to suggest he did not have chemical weapons at least, and the capacity and will to develop further, unless you just think he decided not to bother out of the goodness of his heart.

143795[/snapback]

 

So you want to actively invade every country that has a brutal dictator as it's head do you? We're going to be pretty busy. Again I laugh at the thought of you caring about the people of Iraq.

 

Hussein did have chemical weapons available to him at one stage (bought from the west iirc), but they posed no threat to us at any stage. It's one thing killing defenceless peasents, quite another attacking a country 3000 miles away with these things. In fact, bombs and bullets are much more effective, the whole term WMD is a misnomer, the only genuine one being the nuclear bomb, which Hussein was a thousand years from making.

 

I think you might find that WMD was in fact a con to get the war started, and I suspect you are the only person in the world not to realise this.

[Guest alex]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

143789[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Probably fantastically naive, obeying orders, and panicking.

 

Think its daft to suggest Iraq didn't have chemical weapons, when they had gassed their own people. Do you still believe in fairies as well ?

143798[/snapback]

Also, how were the people who cleaned up afterwards naive and panicking? Do you even read what people write? FFS

[LeazesMag 0]

We should never had gone in in the first place.

 

But hindsight is a wonderful thing

143518[/snapback]

 

No hindsight needed to be involved in this one.

143566[/snapback]

 

so you think that Saddam should still be torturing, murdering and terrorising his own people...and breaking the terms of the original surrender thereby sticking 2 fingers up at the world, along with developing chemical weapons and potentially nuclear ones

 

You're like chemical Ali. You will deny Iran are a danger to the world when they are nuking Israel in the backround.

143762[/snapback]

 

As usual, you are grossly oversimplify things Leazes. To cut a long story short though, there is no way in hell I would have gone into Iraq, as Hussein posed no threat whatsoever. The weapons inspectors knew this, and they said it at the time, to anyone who would listen, and lo and behold, nothing was found. Not a single bit of evidence of WMD.

 

I would also avoid going into Iran at all costs. I take it you want to invade do you?

143769[/snapback]

 

 

Over-simplifying ? Odd, but I think you spend too much time going too deeply and complaining about things which are sadly inevitable, and not just this particular thread. I think if you are prepared to allow a beaten dictator time to regroup, as well as flout his surrender terms, you have very little idea of the the value and importance of exercising authority. Iraq invaded Kuwait, they were flouting the terms of surrender. This ALONE, is reason enough to go in and finish off what should admittedly have been done the first time.

 

Sorry if that is a bit too basic for you, while you sit and work out excuses otherwise.

 

As Saddam had already gassed his own people, it is absolutely stupid to suggest he did not have chemical weapons at least, and the capacity and will to develop further, unless you just think he decided not to bother out of the goodness of his heart.

143795[/snapback]

 

So you want to actively invade every country that has a brutal dictator as it's head do you? We're going to be pretty busy. Again I laugh at the thought of you caring about the people of Iraq.

 

Hussein did have chemical weapons available to him at one stage (bought from the west iirc), but they posed no threat to us at any stage. It's one thing killing defenceless peasents, quite another attacking a country 3000 miles away with these things. In fact, bombs and bullets are much more effective, the whole term WMD is a misnomer, the only genuine one being the nuclear bomb, which Hussein was a thousand years from making.

 

I think you might find that WMD was in fact a con to get the war started, and I suspect you are the only person in the world not to realise this.

143800[/snapback]

 

1. Nowt like making assumptions.

 

2. If he had chemical weapons once, can you think of any other reason why he wouldn't have them or use them again, unless you think he had turned over a new leaf And whether he can "attack us or not" - is not the point. Ironic that you say I am surprising you by commenting on humanitarian issues, yet you are coming out with the classic "I'm all right Jack" line.

 

3. I think you will find that one or two very important people also think he had WMD's. Or develop the technology. By flouting the terms of the surrender, he was taking the piss, breaking an agreement and re-inforcing any suspicion that he had something to hide.

 

4. Lastly I told you one good reason why the 2nd invasion was necessary, but you won't accept it because you are naive and refuse to accept other countries that are run by despots are not a danger, the attitude which led to 2 world wars in the last century.

 

5. You knew exactly what myself, and one or two others, would say about this anyway, the same as I knew what the do gooders would say, that they think everything in war is clean, calculated and there are no innocent casualties except the ones on our side.

[LeazesMag 0]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

143789[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Probably fantastically naive, obeying orders, and panicking.

 

Think its daft to suggest Iraq didn't have chemical weapons, when they had gassed their own people. Do you still believe in fairies as well ?

143798[/snapback]

Also, how were the people who cleaned up afterwards naive and panicking? Do you even read what people write? FFS

143801[/snapback]

 

Is your avatar

a symbol of the fact that you support law and order, or the thought police ?

[Zathras 244]

Wow; up until this thread, I'd not really paid too clost attention to LM's debates; just assumed he believed the other side of things; but in this thread I realize that he really doesn't read what the other people are saying.

[LeazesMag 0]

Wow; up until this thread, I'd not really paid too clost attention to LM's debates; just assumed he believed the other side of things; but in this thread I realize that he really doesn't read what the other people are saying. 

143866[/snapback]

 

Wierd, but I thought the do gooders don't pay any attention to anyone else either.

 

It's not difficult to try to understand the realistic point of view from that of a soldier or someone in a life or death, stressful and panic situation, I have said that if the upper people are incompetent, they should rightly take the rap. These type of comments crop up regularly on here whenever something happens, and the hand wringers think the world is a wonderful place where everybody plays by boy scout rules.

 

However, what would YOU say, if I thought our soldiers could probably handle that situation in question a million times better than the Americans ?

Edited June 1, 2006 by LeazesMag

[Zathras 244]

Wow; up until this thread, I'd not really paid too clost attention to LM's debates; just assumed he believed the other side of things; but in this thread I realize that he really doesn't read what the other people are saying. 

143866[/snapback]

 

Wierd, but I thought the do gooders don't pay any attention to anyone else either.

 

It's not difficult to try to understand the realistic point of view from that of a soldier or someone in a life or death, stressful and panic situation, I have said that if the upper people are incompetent, they should rightly take the rap. These type of comments crop up regularly on here whenever something happens, and the hand wringers think the world is a wonderful place where everybody plays by boy scout rules.

 

However, what would YOU say, if I thought our soldiers could probably handle that situation in question a million times better than the Americans ?

143872[/snapback]

 

I would first yawn at the blatant fishing and attempt to change the topic from the questions that you have ignored thus far, and then point out the several British atrocities e.g. Jallianwala Bagh.

[Happy Face 29]

A massacre tape has emerged. Watch it here...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm

 

[Renton 21643]

1. Nowt like making assumptions.

 

2. If he had chemical weapons once, can you think of any other reason why he wouldn't have them or use them again, unless you think he had turned over a new leaf  And whether he can "attack us or not" - is not the point. Ironic that you say I am surprising you by commenting on humanitarian issues, yet you are coming out with the classic "I'm all right Jack" line.

 

3. I think you will find that one or two very important people also think he had WMD's. Or develop the technology. By flouting the terms of the surrender, he was taking the piss, breaking an agreement and re-inforcing any suspicion that he had something to hide.

 

4. Lastly I told you one good reason why the 2nd invasion was necessary, but you won't accept it because you are naive and refuse to accept other countries that are run by despots are not a danger, the attitude which led to 2 world wars in the last century.

 

5. You knew exactly what myself, and one or two others, would say about this anyway, the same as I knew what the do gooders would say, that they think everything in war is clean, calculated and there are no innocent casualties except the ones on our side.

143862[/snapback]

 

1. What assumptions? That you care little for the welfare of the citizens of Iraq? A pretty fare assumption given your previous posts on this board and even this thread, I would have thought. Or have you changed your stance on asylum seekers recently?

 

2. I would have thought that whether Iraq posed a threat to us or his neighbours was exactly the point. After all, if he was no threat, why invade? I assume you are not naive enough to think the invasion was for humanitarian reasons, and if it was, as I have said, why not invade several other equally "bad" nations. Personally, I would have been against the war even if it was solely for humanitarian reasons as I was convinced it would lead to more suffering and death, in the long and short term. I think I am being proved right, and we have the added bonus of Iraq becoming a prime breeding ground for terrorists and fundamentalist muslims - how ironic is that? Like I said, utterly predictable though, except to the neocons, it seems.

 

3. No-one in a position that mattered thought he was a threat. His lack of so-called WMD had been confirmed by UN weapons inspectors, and Iraq was open to inspection at the time of the invasion. Do you seriously think Western intelligence could get it so wrong? No Leazes, WMD were an excuse for the invasion, not the reason, and once again you demonstrate your naivety (the real reasons would be an entirely new debate). Yes, of course Hussein took the piss on occasion until the US called his bluff, but if you think it is reasonable to go to war with the terrible resultant consequences we are now seeing (I suspect with worse to come), because someone took the piss, then you really are barking.

 

4. Classic Leazes. Make a pointless and completely flawed comparison with a bygone age.

 

5. Not sure what you are getting at. Alex started this thread, and you jumped in with both feet on one of my replies, in the process making it obvious you had not read the original article. Proves you prefer an argument to a debate really, doesn't it? Also I'd like you to point out anywhere where I have said that war is anything but a horrific affair with many civilian casualties - you're not up to your usual tricks of putting words into other peoples' mouths are you?

 

Now, I've tried to answer your points as best I can, now can you answer two of mine (yes or no will do)?

 

A. Do you think we should withdraw from Iraq now, leaving behind a bloody civil war (I think you suggested this a couple of weeks ago)?

 

B. Do you think we should invade Iran?

[The Fish 10876]

Renton, I may not be as verbose as you but I know that it's pretty obvious that in a situation like that facing the US soldiers in Iraq, there is going to be horrific incidents.

 

I'm being asked to call them atrocities, despite describing them as such from the very first post.

 

None of this is right, none of this is proper, but it's here and it needs to be dealt with. Wailing and bemoaning horros every time they happen will serve NO purpose. Will it stop the soldiers on the front line? No, of course not. Will it change political pressure? .. are you kidding?

 

it's nice to jump behind the veil of indignation but the bare facts are that in war, atrocities occur.

 

Renton appears to see this issue in black and white, you either agree with him or are condoning a massacre.

 

this is over-simplifying the issue, it's terrible that innocents have died, it's horrendous that they died at the hands of people who have been disciplined and controlled, but if you can tell me that if you were in that situation. That boiling pot of hate, turmoil, betrayal and fear.. if in all of that you could keep your head.. then I'd first call you a fool and then a liar.

 

How can you possibly attach the norms and values we hold dear in normal society to that kind of hell hole?

 

it's not right, it's not fair but it's true.

 

I haven't clicked on HF's links, but I'd assume he was showing Ash and Milgrams experiments? Once the person becomes an agent of the system he can do things outside the boundaries of his personal beliefs, he can also justify these actions later.

 

and that isn't even touching on the effects of the de-humanisation of the enemy, stress and betrayal

 

So sure, merrily slate the soldiers if you like, but they aren't the issue... a few courts martial won't solve the problem. It's got to happen at the top, it's got to happen on both sides and it has to happen over time.

 

simply sentencing a dozen american soldiers for murder will not suddenly put all the pins back in the grenades.

 

but if you really want to get upset about something, what about the thousands of Iraqi's who die at the hands of their countrymen?

 

I remember reading somewhere that for some people a US life was worth more than an Iraqi Life... and I don't think that's the whole truth, I think that for a lot of people an American Murderer is more shocking than an Iraqi Murderer.

 

 

it's as if they expect less of the Iraqi's.

[Renton 21643]

Renton, I may not be as verbose as you but I know that it's pretty obvious that in a situation like that facing the US soldiers in Iraq, there is going to be horrific incidents.

 

I'm being asked to call them atrocities, despite describing them as such from the very first post.

 

None of this is right, none of this is proper, but it's here and it needs to be dealt with. Wailing and bemoaning horros every time they happen will serve NO purpose. Will it stop the soldiers on the front line? No, of course not. Will it change political pressure? .. are you kidding?

 

it's nice to jump behind the veil of indignation but the bare facts are that  in war, atrocities occur.

 

Renton appears to see this issue in black and white, you either agree with him or are condoning a massacre.

 

this is over-simplifying the issue, it's terrible that innocents have died, it's horrendous that they died at the hands of people who have been disciplined and controlled, but if you can tell me that if you were in that situation. That boiling pot of hate, turmoil, betrayal and fear.. if in all of that you could keep your head.. then I'd first call you a fool and then a liar.

 

How can you possibly attach the norms and values we hold dear in normal society to that kind of hell hole?

 

it's not right, it's not fair but it's true.

 

I haven't clicked on HF's links, but I'd assume he was showing Ash and Milgrams experiments? Once the person becomes an agent of the system he can do things outside the boundaries of his personal beliefs, he can also justify these actions later.

 

and that isn't even touching on the effects of the de-humanisation of the enemy, stress and betrayal

 

So sure, merrily slate the soldiers if you like, but they aren't the issue... a few courts martial won't solve the problem. It's got to happen at the top, it's got to happen on both sides and it has to happen over time.

 

simply sentencing a dozen american soldiers for murder will not suddenly put all the pins back in the grenades.

 

but if you really want to get upset about something, what about the thousands of Iraqi's who die at the hands of their countrymen?

 

I remember reading somewhere that for some people a US life was worth more than an Iraqi Life... and I don't think that's the whole truth, I think that for a lot of people an American Murderer is more shocking than an Iraqi Murderer.

 

 

it's as if they expect less of the Iraqi's.

143946[/snapback]

 

Jesus wept! Do you even know what verbose means? You and HTT are the champions of it.

 

Once again I have very little idea about what you are whittling on about, and once again I suspect you have completely misinterpretted me.

 

I'll try and be succinct as to my thoughts on this thread:

 

It looks like atrocities have been commited in Iraq by US soldiers, whilst I don't think that is unexpected (DOES THAT BIT REGISTER?), I think there should be a full inquiry and those responsible should be tried for murder.

I believe invading Iraq was a huge mistake, and this self-evident, and this was utterly predictable.

I do not think any of these issues are black and white, the world is actually a very complicated place. I haven't got a clue what can be done about Iraq now, as basically the country has been completely fucked.

 

Loved the bit about you not clicking on those links but you already knew what they were, you're dead clever like, I'm sure you'll be earning much more than your Dad as a Harley Street psychologist in no time.

[Gemmill 44996]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

[Renton 21643]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

143967[/snapback]

 

WHAT ARE YE LOOKING AT N'AARLL?

[Guest alex]

GF isn't as verbose as Renton, sadly

Edited June 2, 2006 by alex