What Really Happened In Fallujah 2004?

what definative PROOF is there that the snipers were american? or that the parents of the children didnt just ASSUME that they were american? i mean, if im an insurgent, im thinking that sniping a couple kids might seem like a good idea to piss people off and turn them against the americans.

so im just wondering what PROOF there is that it was a US sniper that fired the shots. doesnt seem fair that with the high standard of demands for concrete evidence there is on this forum that we just assume that this documentry got all the facts right or that all witnesses were telling the truth.

Everything I see about the war and what was going on in Fallujah is building into a pretty consistent picture. I don't see a lot of actual evidence for foreign insurgents. I hear a lot of US claims that they're there but I don't see any actually produced. Plus, I'm starting to hear UK soldiers saying "there aren't any foreign insurgents, or at least we haven't seen any. " I'm afraid I simply don't trust anything the US army has to say about this (as opposed to the testimony of individual soldiers, although I think some of them toe the official line).

I am seeing a lot of evidence that this army is becoming ever more brutal and callous about taking human life. As referenced in a post above, two of our soldiers have chucked in solid careers because they don't want anything to do with what's going on out there and are appalled at the behaviour of the US soldiers.

As for 'innocent until proven guilty' - you know what? All I'm doing is posting my opinions on a board. US soldiers out there are making life-or-death decisions about whether a given Iraqi is an insurgent or not. And they're making those decisions, which have far more drastic consequences, much more carelessly than I am. If they think an Iraqi is guilty - or even if they think there's a chance he's guilty - that Iraqi dies.

In view of all that, I really think it's far more likely that it was a US sniper. My picture, as I've said before, of Fallujah, is of people going out and defending their turf against an army of occupation. I don't deny that there are Iraqis killing Iraqis - but they tend to be either suicide bombers targeting people who are supporting the occupation, for example by joining the police, or using IEDs to try to kill occupation forces.

if it was a US sniper...and IF the kids were unarmed or not involved in a hostile action against US soldiers...THEN the snipers should be tried for murder. plain and simple. but seems that this country has been built on "innocent until proven guilty". and please dont fall back on the lame excuse that the war is illegal so that makes each bullet fired over there a crime. i dont agree with you but ive come to respect you. dont make me second guess that.

Sorry to disappoint you, D. It's not a lame excuse. I don't know if I've mentioned it to you in previous posts, but in my youth I actually did a law degree. I never went on to do the postgrad stuff, but three years of sweating over law books does give me something of a clue on this. There's a line in the Geneva Convention - and forgive me if I haven't got the time and energy to go and source it for you - that says wars of aggression are the most heinous of all, because they contain in them the seeds of all other war crimes. And that's what's happening now, imo.

And as I've said above, US soldiers certainly aren't thinking "innocent until proven guilty". And the subjects of THEIR judgement calls die.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by rich23]

Mr D-

you ive come to respect even if i dont agree with you entirely.

Mutual, sir

im well, an idealist. i believe in self determination.

ME TOO! Where we differ is in our knowledge and interpretation of the US record in its foreign policy. I'm a musician and I travelled around the Caribbean, and Central and Latin America for some years on cruise ships. Now I'm the kind of guy that wants to find out something about the places I'm seeing... and I'm wondering, why are these places so poor? And I found out a whole bunch of stuff... and now I find myself posting on these boards trying to just dispel the myth that the US is this benevolent power. It's always, always, about money, access to natural resources, strategic considerations and that kind of thing. Do you have any idea how many democratically elected governments the US has subverted for its own ends since the beginning of the last century? Way too many for me to count off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make out the UK is any kind of saint either. I just think it's a good thing if you can realise the kind of nasty s*** your country's up to, it stops you getting all swole-headed.

And sorry to hear about your medical condition... but I hope you don't think I'm being disrespectful when I say that conditions for an occupying army are a bit different from what you knew.

once they can protect themselves, we leave.

Nuh-uh. 'Fraid not. Here's a link to an ATS thread that shows that there are plans for permanent bases. It starts saying there are over 100, which is an exaggeration, but the US definitely has plans for at least four massive bases in the deep desert. Why, you might care to ponder.

i never killed no baby.

I don't doubt that for a moment.

But funnily enough... do you remember the fuss about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of Kuwaiti incubators so they could steal the incubators? A young girl gave an eyewitness report to the UN, burst into tears and everything. Turns out she was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, had seen nothing of the sort, but was coached by the PR firm Hill & Knowleton for her performance in front of the UN.

That was one of the things that helped mobilise support for Gulf War I.

now, had you presented that as SOME us soldiers...id have no issue with it...but you are GENERALIZING!

Got me. In mitigation, I do think there's a LOT of it about, though.

is it really right of you to classify all of them as criminals?

Ok... I'm going to do this one off the top of my head, because I'm spending WAY TOO MUCH time on this board. In UK law (and I think US law on this is not dissimilar) there are two components of a criminal offence, the physical action and the mental state that accompanies it, known in latin as actus reus and mens rea. Now broadly, there are certain crimes that are so serious that mens rea or intent is irrelevant. For example, if you kill someone but you didn't mean to, in the UK that isn't murder but it IS manslaughter. I suspect that war crimes are covered like that, and that lack of mens rea is not an excuse. JMO and if anyone wants to post a more detailed analysis, fine.

Damn, hit 'post' before I'd finished.

what would you have had them do? desert en masse?

Well... try applying it to the Nazi armies in Europe. Would it not have been better if they'd all thought, hang on, we're invading another country here... but actually, they had the excuse that the Geneva Conventions, if memory serves, were written after WWII. Personally, I'd really like people just to refuse to kill each other. I think that would be a step forward.

You gotta give me credit for idealism too, man...

Sorry, forgot to deal with your point about soldiers giving up their own rights. To some extent I absolutely see what you're saying. But ultimately, you can take back those rights. I can't remember if I've posted details in this thread, and if you want I'll find you the story, but we've just had two UK soldiers (one from the SAS, which is the UK's most elite fighting regiment, and the other an RAF doctor) refuse to go back to Iraq on moral grounds. If you really want to you can take back those rights, or at least say, I'm not doing this any more and I'm prepared to take the consequences.

[edit on 21-4-2006 by rich23]

[edit on 21-4-2006 by rich23]

ultralo:

You are right I was TRAINED to kill people. I spent an entire 7 days learning how to safeley handle a weapon, keep it clean and serviceble and to keep it from shooting someone that I did not mean to. I spent a few days on hand to hand combat. So I guess that you should consider me a trained killer...

Yes I would. You have been trained to kill without conscience.

I noticed that you are from Quebec so I understand that it must be hard for you to find someone with first hand knowledge, but I am sure If you try you can find someone who is or has been a soldier. Because Iam telling you in the nicest way possible that If you keep quoting movie titles as your referance source your veiw of the real world will be extremly "WHACKED".

First off, what does that mean that it's difficult for me in Quebec to find any military? I have the Black Watch barracks right down the street from where I live. My next door neighbour's son is in Afghanistan. So please explain.

PS back at you, IF it was not for the heros that carried the rifles then you would not have the right to refuse to carry.

Blah blah. The soldiers who fought in World Wars did less to "protect" me than those who brokered the peace that ended the war.

Canada Fought well to keep itself from being part of the US. Do you think the fighting was worth it?

Yeah we had to fight to avoid being invaded, so absolutely.


WHEN exactly did FOLLOWING ORDERS become heroic? It's not.

My father, who never spent a day in the military, raised 3 children almost by himself, working full time at 2 jobs and putting us all through school.

He is more of a hero than some guy who volunteers to help his country's military-industrial complex. Disagree if you want.

Venerate those who push to make the world a better place for others, not the ones who try to solve problems down the barrel of a gun. Because IT DOESN'T WORK!

Yes I would. You have been trained to kill without conscience.

Pardon me, But WTF. you have never talked to me. I have made 1 or 2 post in reply to you. What do you know about my conscience? what do you know about military training? Its obvious to me, You KNOW NOTHING. It also appears that you choose to ignore what you are being told. You mentioned nothing about the Medical training that i recieved. Guess what With that training i can save more lives than you can. have you ever recieved any medical training, besides CPR ? Also the weapons training was more about SAFELY HANDLING a weapon instead of killing. Can You handle a weapon safely?

First off, what does that mean that it's difficult for me in Quebec to find any military? I have the Black Watch barracks right down the street from where I live. My next door neighbour's son is in Afghanistan. So please explain.[

If you have a barracks down the street why havent you went and talked to some soldiers about thier training instead of using movies as a basis of you ideas. I noticed that you called him "my neighbours son" not my friend or an aquaintence. Have you spoke to him or have you tried to send him some stuff from home. Have you even sent this person a letter to tell him that he does not need to worry about his family, that you will help look out for them? Have you done anything for any soldier beside bash them?

Blah blah. The soldiers who fought in World Wars did less to "protect" me than those who brokered the peace that ended the war.

What do you think made these people want to broker peace? A protest? No it was several nations armies saying NOPE we aint gonna let yea.

Yeah we had to fight to avoid being invaded, so absolutely

So you do support a nation using "murders" when it suits you.

My father, who never spent a day in the military, raised 3 children almost by himself, working full time at 2 jobs and putting us all through school.

I would never belittle a MAN who works hard to make his families life better

Venerate those who push to make the world a better place for others, not the ones who try to solve problems down the barrel of a gun. Because IT DOESN'T WORK!

How do you think we got to the peace tables? The barrel of a gun.

ultralo:

Pardon me, But WTF. you have never talked to me. I have made 1 or 2 post in reply to you. What do you know about my conscience?

The Army trained you to kill. To kill without thinking about it. Kill or be killed. You are trained to REACT without thinking (because in the time you spend thinking, you might be killed).

You defend soldiers who kill, and you have yet to bring up any actual instance of any iota of regret. That to me means you probably have no conscience.

And most soldiers only suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder AFTER they arrive back home. To the "real world". And they realize what they have become.

I noticed that you called him "my neighbours son" not my friend or an aquaintence. Have you spoke to him or have you tried to send him some stuff from home. Have you even sent this person a letter to tell him that he does not need to worry about his family, that you will help look out for them?

Let me make this clear. Him serving in Afghanistan is doing NOTHING to help me, or to protect me. He is doing it because Canada says we should, so he serves and he goes. He follows orders, and that's it.

He is putting his life on the line, but not for me. For his commanders and his superiors. Not for me. Him patrolloing Afghanistan does not make ME safer, maybe it makes Afghanistan safer. Well that's his choice, he volunteered.

So good for him that he was willing to "serve" his country and do what it wants him to do, but don't for a SECOND believe that he is there "protecting freedom" or "making the world safer for me". He's doing what his masters tell him to do.

4 Canadian soldiers died last week, does their deaths somehow help me? Help them? Help ANYONE? Nope. It's a stupid waste.

So you do support a nation using "murders" when it suits you.

No, actually, I don't. We fought because we had to, to avoid invasion. We were not the aggressors, as I understand it. I love peace but I'm not a pacifist. If you try to hurt those I love then I will do something (and I love a lot of people). If the absolute and total last resort is violence, then I'll try that.

How do you think we got to the peace tables? The barrel of a gun.

? By threats, you mean? Please explain.

Oh and by the way, RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS do not EVER want war.

IRRATIONAL people and governments do.

Because rational people know what war produces. Death, despair, and widescale misery.

Maybe if the United States had ever faced a war on their own soil you would realize that. Had the Nazis been bombing the US instead of Britain, you would be speaking with a different tone now, after having firsthand knowledge of the effects of war on your family and friends, not just some strangers in some far away country.



ps. I participated in a 3 year study in University where we interviewed WWI and WWII veterans about their experiences in the wars. I sat in front of these old, rheumy-eyed men in their hospital rooms as they remembered what they had seen and done, and VERY FEW of them were proud of it at all. I remember one man, who had been a sapper, who mostly cried for an hour and a half. They pretty much all were united in their revulsion for war after having received a belly-full of it.

I wonder then why you are not.


Oh crap, this is about Fallujah, right? Here's some info from Joe Carr of the Christian Peacemakers Team:

www.selvesandothers.org...

Read the article, too, An Unnatural Disaster. Powerful stuff.







[edit on 24-4-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Jakomo]

The Army trained you to kill. To kill without thinking about it. Kill or be killed. You are trained to REACT without thinking (because in the time you spend thinking, you might be killed).

Uh, NO they did not, But it is pretty obvious that no matter what I tell you you are not going to believe it. If you had proven in the earlier post that you were open to the truth of my traning then I would give a response.

You defend soldiers who kill, and you have yet to bring up any actual instance of any iota of regret. That to me means you probably have no conscience.

Yes I will defend SOLDIERS that have a job to do. I will defend them as my brothers because that is what they are. and I will be here when they come home to help them readjust to the real world in whatever way I can. I do this because they have sacrificed in ways you will never understand. You will never understand why we do what we have done. Some of us see it as a duty, or as a way to give back to our country for everything it has given us. Alot of us when we do get back to the real world get really fed up with people who take it for granted. We have seen who wonderful we do have it. I am not just talking of USA, but Canada, UK, Japan, Astralia, and all the other non opressed nations out there. We understand how bad other countries are, how little freedom they have. Do you? Can you imagine being stoned to death just because you dont believe in a certan GOD? Can you imagine your family being put to death because you publicly announced that your countries leader was wrong?

And most soldiers only suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder AFTER they arrive back home. To the "real world". And they realize what they have become.

It is called POST-tsd. Yes they do suffer, war is an unnatural act for most humans. In the different parts of the world life is not valued as highly as it is in our perspective countries. Killing a "lesser" person is no differant than killing a dog. It is not realizing what they have become. it is more to do with what they have done. War is horrible and it does horrible things to good people. BUT you know if we were trully without conscience we would not suffer PTSD. Think on it before you reply.

Let me make this clear. Him serving in Afghanistan is doing NOTHING to help me, or to protect me. He is doing it because Canada says we should, so he serves and he goes. He follows orders, and that's it.

There sure is alot ME,ME,ME in those statements. I asked if YOU have done anything to Help his family out. But I think your reply says it all. The only person you seem conserned about is YOURSELF.

No, actually, I don't. We fought because we had to, to avoid invasion. We were not the aggressors, as I understand it. I love peace but I'm not a pacifist. If you try to hurt those I love then I will do something (and I love a lot of people). If the absolute and total last resort is violence, then I'll try that.

Why did you have to? Canada could have surrendered peacfully and become part of the US. If they would have done that then it would have been peacefull but instead Canada Belived it would be beter of on its own so it choose to fight. If Canada would have just agrred to be part of the US then there would not have been anybody hurt.

Oh and by the way, RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS do not EVER want war.

Agreed

Maybe if the United States had ever faced a war on their own soil you would realize that. Had the Nazis been bombing the US instead of Britain, you would be speaking with a different tone now, after having firsthand knowledge of the effects of war on your family and friends, not just some strangers in some far away country.

Well, true we have not had foregn invader on our soil for over 200 years, but me and my family have first hand knowledge of what war does. And had it not been for the US stepping into WW2 then you would be speaking a different tone also, It would be German, Not french canadian.

ps. I participated in a 3 year study in University where we interviewed WWI and WWII veterans about their experiences in the wars. I sat in front of these old, rheumy-eyed men in their hospital rooms as they remembered what they had seen and done, and VERY FEW of them were proud of it at all. I remember one man, who had been a sapper, who mostly cried for an hour and a half. They pretty much all were united in their revulsion for war after having received a belly-full of it.

I have been inthe military, I have familiy that was in WW2,Korea, Vietnam and I have worked in VA hospitals. I have talked to these men, I did not interview them. They all have regrets but they all are proud of what their efforts accomplished and never for one minute will I let someone belittle what these people have done and sacrificed.

Oh crap, this is about Fallujah, right? Here's some info from Joe Carr of the Christian Peacemakers Team:

I read the article. 2 sides to every story. I am glad that I live in a country where its citizens can express there opinions without fear of retribution.






]

ultralo:

Some of us see it as a duty, or as a way to give back to our country for everything it has given us.

Helping the people in your community who need it would be a far better way to "give back to your country". I can think of 1000 ways you could actually help your country for REAL instead of the illusion of helping it by joining the Army, where you have no real say in what happens.

Uh, NO they did not, But it is pretty obvious that no matter what I tell you you are not going to believe it.

DID THE ARMY TRAINING YOU RECEIVE TEACH YOU HOW TO DEAL WITH HOW YOU "FEEL" ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE, IE. THE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS? Just answer that one.

Oh, and another. DO THEY TEACH YOU THAT LIFE HAS VALUE?

War is horrible and it does horrible things to good people. BUT you know if we were trully without conscience we would not suffer PTSD. Think on it before you reply.

You just backed up my point of view. War is a crucible that you put men into, they get ground up and they come out changed. For the worse.

You can take a normal, law-abiding citizen and stick him in the Army and after wartime he may come out a psychopath. Think Timothy McVeigh, for one.

Of course, you can take a peaceful, non-violent person, and they would never join the Army in the first place, since they would know what they would be forced to do. FORCED to do. You have no choice but to follow orders or face repercussions.

But I think your reply says it all. The only person you seem conserned about is YOURSELF.

Yeah, maybe because I don't put one face on my countrymen. My country is full of different people with different outlooks on things. To me, it's stupid to say things that I can claim "represent my countrymen" since the only person I can speak for is myself. Which is who I am speaking for.

I don't claim to represent the viewpoints of my whole country, because that's stupid. Everyone is different, no matter the flag they wave.

And had it not been for the US stepping into WW2 then you would be speaking a different tone also

Blabbity blah. You only got involved in WWII after the US was directly attacked. If it hadn't have been, you wouldn't have joined the war. So spare your "we saved you".

The RUSSIANS did more to stop Hitler than anyone.

They all have regrets but they all are proud of what their efforts accomplished

Most of the vets I have spoken too felt they had accomplished nothing. I guess you didn't ask the right questions.


jako









[edit on 24-4-2006 by Jakomo]

Yep, Army soldiers are trained to be mindless killers. That's why my Infantry Drill Sergeant told us, in training, "When you go into combat, and have to shoot somebody, you need to remember that he's fighting for his wife, and to see his children again, and men that's why you have to be absolutely certain, in the back of your mind, that when you pull that trigger, you're doing the right thing."

The notion that soldiers are mindless killers is complete, utter BS, and I'll tell you why.

BTW, Infantryman these days are given the furthest thing from harsh training to make them into trained, mindless killers, who will shoot at anything. If anything, the training these days is too easy on the soldiers.

Infantry training itself isn't even really to train you to go to war, it's to give you the basic skills so that when you go to your unit, THEY can train you for war. Infantry tactics change too much, and they're too different, so you just get the very basics in your training.

The tactics of the 10th Mountain infantry are different then those of the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Infantry.

As for soldiers in battle, yes, Fallujah, did have a much lower civilian body count then other urban conflicts. It is a display of the true professionalism of the U.S. military.

Soldiers these days are the farthest thing from mindless, especially in the U.S. military. It is impossible to have such high-tech weapons and expect a bunch of dumb folk to operate them.

Also, this isn't the Soviet Union. No Private is simply told to just "charge that hill," unquestioningly, with no idea why, and just does so. Every soldier down to the lowest rank has some idea of why they're doing what they're doing. It's not like the Russian, Chinese, or Korean armies that just send wave after wave of mindless charges against machine gun fire (as happened in the Korean War).

As for soldiers firing mindlessly, that basis is also complete BS. For one, you don't carry enough darn rounds! There's a thing called FIRE DISCIPLINE, meaning you train so as only to shoot when you need to. You don't want to use up all your bullets. A magazine holds 30 rounds, and the standard oad is about 210 rounds unless you buy more magazines to fill.

Don't believe the movies where you're strolling along with an M16 and someone shoots at you and you just open fire with that M16 like a machine gun. You fire an M16 like a machine gun, you'll use up all your bullets really fast, plus you'll likely melt the barrel and have a useless weapon. No modern M16 even has fully automatic fire.

You fire six shots, individually, from an M-4 or M-16 and the barrel is smoking. The only machine gun that fires the rounds of an M-16 is the Squad Automatic Weapon, the M-249. That fires the same rounds, but like a machine gun. When you fire THAT thing, the barrel starts smoking and it smells like hot coals. And even the rounds in that are limited (around 200 in a cartridge), so you don't just pull back the trigger and sit there firing for 5 straight minutes).

When you do fire, you shoot at what needs to be shot at, so as to hit the enemy and not waste your rounds.

Another thing is how the shooting happens. When soldiers go into a building, their weapons are on SAFE, pointing downwards. When you go in to clear a room, you raise the weapon up, pointing it forward and flick it off of SAFE. You go into the room, find it is clear, you flick it back onto SAFE. The weapon goes back down. You move to the next room or what not, you repeat the process, the weapon comes up and flicks off of SAFE, you check the room, flick it off of SAFE.

Professional soldiers are just that, PROFESSIONAL. These days they're brainier than ever and have much more sophisticated training so as NOT to open fire at random.

Soldiers will do drills where they just stand there simulating firing the rifle; raising it up, flicking it off of SAFE, pulling the trigger, flicking SAFE back on, pointing it down again, etc....they'll do these drills for long periods of time.

They drill lots of SWAT-style tactics. Spec-Ops guys do LOTS of that stuff, but Infantry do it a lot too these days.

Fire discipline is greatly, greatly emphasized. In training, if any of us got caught with their weapon off of SAFE, we essentially got a boot in our ass. Not literally, but the DS smoked you so badly you wished that was all he'd done.

If your weapon was caught off of SAFE with a loaded magazine in it, well, you may as well just have asked for a vacation in hell for awhile.

You'd hear it all the time, "HEY PRIVATE, GET THAT F**KING WEAPON ON SAFE!!"

Another thing was in making sure the barrel never pointed at any other soldiers. In the movies, you'll see a soldier get up and start running, his rifle's barrel swining in all directions. In training, they drill constantly to run with the barrel pointing straight to the ground. You point is sideways and get an accidental discharge, and you might kill your own leader.

Soldiers are the farthest, farthest thing from mindless killers. They do drills all the time, it's not like they're just taught how to shoot targets on a range, then sent out on patrol. They do fire discipline drills all the time to make sure they DON'T accidentally shoot the wrong people, including themselves (which has happened, which is why it is so emphasized).

For the ones who do shoot civilians, as shown, it is usually because they had no choice, or it was a complete accident. We had a machine gun Sergeant explain to us that two of his guys went to Fort Leavenworth (prison) because they fell asleep since they'd been up for like 3 days straight with no real rest, and then accidentally shot a civvie.

Wheels: Great post. I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that wartime (not necessarily the ARMY) makes people regress. Become more violent, etc.

The only thing I would disagree with is :

For the ones who do shoot civilians, as shown, it is usually because they had no choice, or it was a complete accident.

That might in fact have been the norm, but what about now? In Iraq? Sure wasn't the norm in Vietnam either.

For me, if the Army says "We know that civilians will die but we will minimize the casualties", it's still murder. They're saying we will just try not kill too many.

If a bomber drops a bomb on a residential area, knowing there are civilians there, it's still murder. He KNOWS they are there but he does it anyway. Following orders...

But I do see where you;re coming from.

I do have a question, though. Do reservists receive the same level of training as the Army?

Damocles:

the only points i ever wanted to make in this thread were: dont generalize all soldiers based on the actions of a few undiciplined ones. dont assume that soldiers are ignorant mindless tools. and dont ever make assumptions about our mindsets and training without firsthand experience in it.

I don't assume all soldiers are mindless baby-killers.

But I do assume that war makes people do terrible things that they would normally not do in real life. Bad bad things that come back to haunt them.

Helping the people in your community who need it would be a far better way to "give back to your country". I can think of 1000 ways you could actually help your country for REAL instead of the illusion of helping it by joining the Army, where you have no real say in what happens.

Can you stop bashing solders long enough to actually help out the community? Have you went to your neighbors yet and asked if there is anything you can do for them while there son is in A-stan?

DID THE ARMY TRAINING YOU RECEIVE TEACH YOU HOW TO DEAL WITH HOW YOU "FEEL" ABOUT KILLING PEOPLE, IE. THE POSSIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS? Just answer that one.

No, because in basic training the main purpose of firearms training is how tio safely handle a weapon. It is not to train to kill. Basic was the only time I was issued a weapon. My advanced training was in the medical field.

You can take a normal, law-abiding citizen and stick him in the Army and after wartime he may come out a psychopath. Think Timothy McVeigh, for one.

Dont use a single incedent to draw broad strokes. How many thousands have been in the military during wartime. One incedent does not make a pattern.

Of course, you can take a peaceful, non-violent person, and they would never join the Army in the first place, since they would know what they would be forced to do. FORCED to do. You have no choice but to follow orders or face repercussions.

Explain Chaplins and Medics and doctors and nurses.

Blabbity blah. You only got involved in WWII after the US was directly attacked. If it hadn't have been, you wouldn't have joined the war. So spare your "we saved you".

Please reread history. The Us was suppling Britian long beform we were bombed. Remember you are here to DENY IGNORANCE.

Most of the vets I have spoken too felt they had accomplished nothing. I guess you didn't ask the right questions.

What are the "right questions"? I guess that "Do you think the ends justified the means" is just not good enough for you.

Originally posted by Damocles


the only points i ever wanted to make in this thread were: dont generalize all soldiers based on the actions of a few undiciplined ones. dont assume that soldiers are ignorant mindless tools. and dont ever make assumptions about our mindsets and training without firsthand experience in it.

but thats just me.

Amen.

Originally posted by Jakomo
Wheels: Great post. I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that wartime (not necessarily the ARMY) makes people regress. Become more violent, etc.

The only thing I would disagree with is :

For the ones who do shoot civilians, as shown, it is usually because they had no choice, or it was a complete accident.

That might in fact have been the norm, but what about now? In Iraq? Sure wasn't the norm in Vietnam either.

For me, if the Army says "We know that civilians will die but we will minimize the casualties", it's still murder. They're saying we will just try not kill too many.

If a bomber drops a bomb on a residential area, knowing there are civilians there, it's still murder. He KNOWS they are there but he does it anyway. Following orders...

But I do see where you;re coming from.

I do have a question, though. Do reservists receive the same level of training as the Army?

Just so you don't get the wrong impression, I was only in the Army for 6 months. I learned a lot there, but I never saw combat or anything. I enlisted in the Infantry, graduated training, then got medically discharged at Airborne School.

Regarding that machine-gun Sergeant, he was referring to incidences that happened in Iraq.

Vietnam, the training was a lot different. The soldiers were under-supplied and also didn't have the communications and navigation equipment they have now. In Vietnam, if you went out on patrol, they had to send an airplane out to radio to you to see if you were still alive. Nowadays, they just pin in the GPS. They have satellite communications, night-vision goggles which every soldier has, etc....in Vietnam the soldiers didn't have the same noise and light discipline they have now. I remember a Special Forces soldier from Vietnam said about how when he was there and had to work with the Infantry, they were literally yelling things to each other in the jungles.

They emphasize now noise and light discipline all the time. They use sign language so they don't have to yell, and to see in the dark, they use night-vision goggles. Every soldier has these in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.

In Vietnam, they couldn't use sign language at night because they couldn't see each other in the black of the jungle without a light, which gave away their position.

In training we were never allowed to use flashlights, as the enemy can see you too easily. We had to feel our way around with our equipment when setting up camp and all that.

In no other Army in the world is every soldier provided with night-vision goggles, body armor, etc....the modern U.S. military is far different then the one of Vietnam.

How much training Active-Duty, Reservists, and Nat'l Guard have really depends on the person's job in civilian life and their level of maturity. Reservists ARE the Army, just soldiers on Reserve status. National Guard are the Army too, just soldiers who do the fighting on the homeland (theoretically). How much training they get depends. There are no Reservist Infantry. Only National Guard and Active-Duty Infantry.

The idea of the Reserves is as Reserve soldiers. The idea of National Guard is the soldiers who fight if the country is invaded or, since that is highly unlikely, the ones who help out for riots and national disasters, and if needed, also help out overseas if the Reserves aren't enough.

ALL soldiers, whether Active-Duty, National Guard, or Reserve, go through the training for their MOS (Mission Occupational Specialty). However, once this training is up, the Active-Duty soldiers go to their units and the Reservists and Nat'l Guard go home to their jobs, to drill "One Weekend A Month, 12 Months A Year," and to be called upon when needed. They need them all now, however, so any Nat'l Guard Infantryman goes overseas these days usually.

Since Active-Duty go straight to their units, where the real-training begins, they in general are a lot more trained. When Nat'l Guard or Reservists are called to Active-Duty, they are intermingled in with the Active-Duty soldiers.

So for example, you wouldn't have an entire patrol consisting of Infantry soldiers who were Nat'l Guard, you'd have Active-Duty with Nat'l Guard guys here and there.

Active-Duty tend to be more disciplined oftentimes (though not always) because when, say, a Private comes out of training and goes to a unit, if they still aren't disciplined, the Sergeants in charge of them discipline them real fast. Whereas a Reservist or Nat'l Guardsman comes out of training, is not very disciplined, and goes straight home, showing up for one weekend each month for training.

That isn't the standard however, and most Reservists and Nat'l Guard these days who join up know they will go overseas or expect it.

When any soldier goes over to Iraq, you aren't just automatically sent out on patrols. If your NCO in charge of you doesn't think you're ready or trained enough, he will make sure they train you up enough first.

Our DS's in training were really adamant about that. Our DS said all the time, "Men, when I went to Iraq, I went in with about 8 years training behind me. You guy's be going in with about 6 months of training behind you."

Right now it is all intermingled. Normally the Active-Duty fights overseas, but the Nat'l Guard protects and fights on the homeland and helps in national disasters. However, when Hurricane Katrina happened, much of the National Guard was overseas, so the 82nd Airborne Division, an active-duty unit, was called in, as they were not overseas. National Guard and I think Reserves were still called in to help out, though.

The training level varies. Many National Guard soldiers are former active-duty. A Nat'l Guard Infantryman who has 12 years of experience Active-Duty has a lot more training then a standard Nat'l Guardsman who has been Nat'l Guard all his life. There are National Guard Special Forces soldiers. There are National Guard Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, even National Guard fighter planes (usually piloted by former Active-Duty Air Force pilots).

And as said, Nat'l Guard and Reservist are juggling it with their civvie job, so when they do train, they train hard, especially right now.

It also varies via MOS. If you're a Reservist mechanic, but as one Army mechanic I knew, are like a Master Technician upon joining the Army, you'll probably be just as well, or better, trained than a lot of the Active-Duty mechanics of the same rank. You just wouldn't have as much experience working on military vehicles. But in terms of overall mechanical knowledge, you're highly trained.

A regular Reservist or Nat'l Guard fireman who is a full-time civilian fireman will be just as well trained as an Active-Duty fireman in a lot of areas.

Whereas an Active-Duty Infantryman, who does lots of fire drills and drills for doing SWAT tactics with night-vision goggles on, is going to be a lot better trained than a Nat'l Guardsman of the same rank who has a desk job in civilian life.

But a National Guard Infantryman who is a full-time police officer in civvie life, there's a difference. A Nat'l Guard Infantryman who is a former SWAT cop will have loads of great training, so it is really varied.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by WheelsRCool]

ultralo:

Can you stop bashing solders long enough to actually help out the community? Have you went to your neighbors yet and asked if there is anything you can do for them while there son is in A-stan?

HE VOLUNTEERED! If I went over to my neighbour and said, "Hey man, is there anything I can do to help you while your son is in Afghanistan?", he would probably look at me like I'm nuts.

His son is 26, has a wife and kid of his own. He made a decision to join the military and that's what he did and now he's in Afghanistan.

If my neighbour needs help putting up a fence or changing his winter tires, I help him out, but honestly, just because his soldier is in the military doesn't mean I owe him anything.

How many thousands have been in the military during wartime. One incedent does not make a pattern.

What percentage of combat veterans come back requiring psychological counseling?

Explain Chaplins and Medics and doctors and nurses

They're specifically trained to do medicine, and then combat secondarily, no?

Again, I am not saying everyone in the army is a babykiller, I am saying that for the most part, combat and warfare often turns people into something different than they were before. And not anything better.

To me killing is killing, and if you volunteer for something where you know you'll have to kill people, well, it says something about you. Enemies of your state are not necessarily your enemies.


Wheels: Man, keep it up. Well written posts and I'm learning a lot.

If my neighbour needs help putting up a fence or changing his winter tires, I help him out, but honestly, just because his soldier is in the military doesn't mean I owe him anything.

You were the one that said "there are a 1000 ways to give back to your community", Iwas just trying to nudge you into practicing what you preach

What percentage of combat veterans come back requiring psychological counseling?

There is a Huge difference between needing conseling and Tim Mcvieh

Again, I am not saying everyone in the army is a babykiller, I am saying that for the most part, combat and warfare often turns people into something different than they were before. And not anything better.

This is certainly a change from your first post on this thread. I for one am glad that you are opening up to the idea that not every soldier is a cold blooded murderer. Thank you.

ultralo:

I for one am glad that you are opening up to the idea that not every soldier is a cold blooded murderer.

I never said that every soldier was a murderer. I said that if you kill someone in wartime, whether or not you are following orders, you are still a murderer.

Originally posted by devilwasp
There is no text book to life nor is there a text book to ATS but if you would kindly point me in the direction of it I would be happy to see if I have accidently qouted something from it.

Your second world war knowledge clearly comes from text books and i can tell because i also read the same old books. My point is that you think the first thing you ever learnt happened to be the truth when it is in fact not.

Thing is I do care what people think, just not you though...

Well if you want to stay decidedly average and ignorant you have picked the right strategy.

So you know what really happened in fallujah 2004 without ever being there? I would say we are both equal on that front since neither or us are there nor near there though I think I am nearer since I am floating off the coast of spain at the moment.

Well obviously we are now mostly talking about the second world war and the comment was in relation to that. The fact that you know nothing about Fallujah to start with means i know more about that as well. Being close to something does not bring understanding any more than being far prohibits it.

Your telling me that physics, mechanical and electrical engineering is wrong?Oook....care to tell me how it worked this morning when I worked on the ships radio system?

Well tell me how physics( with their half baked ideas) and mechanical engineering &electrical ( which is extremely limited in it's current form) can shape your view of the world on any scale similar to how history can? Why do you try so hard to avoid the obvious intent of my questions? We talk about history ( second world war -fallujah) and then you bring up physics? Whatever your strategy remember that if you throw a dice enough times your bound to get a certain number and it's much the same with our understand of physics where you can keep creating models till one of them gives you predictive powers under certain circumstances. That is in fact all science is imo and the joke is to watch them try combine all those models towards a greater understanding; something they obviously have not managed just yet.

Is it foolish for a 17 year old to think he knows some things or shall you be the judge of what I know?\par
No dont bother answering theres no point since as you said before the object of older people teaching is to fill me with 95% lies.....so that means your lieing to...

No it's not foolish to think you know whats going on ( i had plenty of theories myself) as long as you do not go around telling people who have had more time and means, to put it together, that their advantage does not mean anything. Since i am not in the education industry or earning a salary for teaching certain things, instead of others, your criticism is completely stupid and devoid of reason. I am here to not only share what i know BUT HOW i came to the conclusions i have. Has your history teacher ever tried to justify his reasons for teaching what he does? Think about it.

Lol you clarified it beneath? No you said "its in plain english " thats not clarification thats ignoring the question.

And after i said that i went on to explain ( in the next post) what you could not figure out. I also happened to point out that your intent was obviously not to discover what i had to say which is now becoming ever more obvious.

Wait you mean those things full of lies and things that dont tell the truth like V equals I times R?
WOw never read them before....

It's not ALL lies OBVIOUSLY but to figure out what is and what isn't is plenty darn hard at that age. My criticism stems from the fact that you believe you can tell the difference at age 17 and seem so willing to insult me for doubting your text book quoting which makes clear that you have not yet came up with many of your own conclusions.

Uhh the goverment said : "War is coming, germany is a sleeping beast" if you dont recall mr winsons speaches in the commons...

A lone voice who was cheered at and generally called names for being such a blatant war monger. Do you not understand that he said that for ten years and were completely ignored?

That war was no accident, it was the bad call of one man ,which I have flamed so I must admit apologise .

Almost all of them backed Chamberlain till the fat was already in the fire so we can obviously not attribute any great intelligence to many of them if they were in fact being honest and evaluating the information fairly. It is in fact self evidence that Germany was allowed to rearm for a reason and that they either believed they could control German actions or that they simply wanted a war.

His great deal of support was because MP's didnt want another war, but hey that would be counter productive to thier original "restrict rights" idea by the government yes no?

Well the Mp's got Britain in a war at the worse possible time over the most stupid of reasons so i can not say i give them high marks if their real intent was to make Britain stronger or generally doing what was best for the country. The fact that they chose to take it to war in the state that it was and did not try to prevent Germany earlier is what is worth discussing.Halifax very nearly got the job ( had the backing of King George V and many others) and odds are in favour that he would immediately have tried to come to terms with the Germans. War is the best time for reforming a society along the lines you want and that has always been true.

And this new character limit is completely irritating.

Part 2...

Mabye you did not read about the discusions between polish and russian governments?
The russian army was prepared to go and defend poland BUT the polish refused it fearing the russians would invade and take over poland.

Yes i read about that and it's plenty obvious the Poles had it right in not trying to settle with Germany or Poland as it would have led to much the same result. What is your point with this comment anyways?

Exscuse me? You where talking about the plan was a fluke, I just proved that was wrong....are you denying this?

If the plan was not compromised it might very well never have been changed to the later 'plan yellow'. It was in fact very much a fluke as i said the first time.

And what weapons in WW2 proved to be interesting weapons? TANKS! bullet resistant and mobile, be a perfect weapon against entrenched infantry in open countryside. The magnionet line was built incase another german WW1 style attack hence why the BEF and france guarded the area where germany would most likely attack from: Brussels . IE where they done it last time.

The Maginot line was built to free up French troops so that they could be massed somewhere for a breakthrough or used as strategic reserve as the Germans could simply mobilize far more troops and with greater speed. The Maginot line was a very logical thing to do but in the end it's benefits were simply thrown to the wind. As i have said before there is very little 'unexpected' in German methods of 1940 if one goes back to the 1918 and study their offensive methods in that year. If generals and the military establishments of France and England cared to look at history these things would hardly have come as such a shock if it was not in fact just excuses for their poor performance anyways. The greatest failure of the allies were not their equipment or training but simply communication and general situational awareness.

Chamberlin helped build the country but frankly he was no war leader, churchil WAS a war leader.

Chamberlain did nothing but get Britain ever closer to the disaster and he was NOT trying to buy time for rearmament as he expressly said. Churchill was not really a war as much as he was someone who was willing to fight; unlike most of the rest it seems. Churchill did his fair share of extremely stupid things that cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of British lives for no gain. Since we never had a chance to see someone else leading Britain in 1940 we are stuck with the belief that he did the best 'they could' which is not true imo.

The press was told what it needed to know, not the other way around.

So logically if Britons could figure it out only by what they were reading in the press how could the politicians not be able ( with far more information and insight into Hitlers political moves) to figure out what was coming? My point so far has been that they DID figure it out but CHOSE to let him rearm for their own motivations.

Yeah hence why he was PM, but that doesnt make him a figure head and I represent the fact your bringing him down because he was a leader.

A figurehead is EXACTLY what it made him as he could lose his position at ANY time if the lost the support of the Mp's or for that matter a select few individuals. He never did and this either says that all those men where duped ( unlikely) or that they thought they could control the situation to their own benefit. Imagining people stupid as basis for historic reasoning is insulting and i suggest you give people more credit, however undeserving they turn out to be, as i have learnt to do.

Geee I wonder why? In the 1930's the nazi's controlled the schools and education, I wonder WHY they where so popular?

The Nazi's only had a short stint in which to 're-educate' Germans and then only those people in school. Since people in school do not much care about politics (unless it's really 'cool'; which Hitler tried to make the Nazi party) you really need to explain how he could so easily impress the rest of the house-owning working population of Germany. Your just not even coming close to addressing my statement or the question behind it.

The nazis rebuilt the country with varios schemes which all seemed like great ideas but frankly it overall was a deception of the highest order.

And FDR did not? You will be EXTREMELY surprised once you find out that FDR and Hitler rebuilt their respective countries in much the same way and that still does not point out who funded the German recovery. It is not only a question of why the world let it happen but in fact why did American industry FUND it?

Would I have survived if I was jewish? Had a birth defect? Been unfit or "unhealthy" or "unpure"? No...most likely not.

And i guess the massive majority of citizens in any given country are those things? Your avoidance tactics are boring me to death.If you discriminate it is mostly EXTREMELY stupid to do so against any majority as that sort of thing takes massive outside support( South Africa/Iraq for instance)

And dont tell me when to keep my mouth shut, you dont out rank me.

I never told you to keep your mouth shut but then at eigtheen every disagreement/misunderstand becomes a insult. I clearly said that keeping your mouth shut in a dictatorship is a great way to prosper and keep out of trouble. It's not that hard if your aim is survival.

I wonder which side was being bombed and starved? Britons or germans?

Both were getting bombed during the war but since i am OBVIOUSLY talking about the 30's in general.

I wonder which side was making the majority of the country stronger while eliminating "the weaker" of the country?
Tell me....would I have survived in nazi germany had I been born blind?

How many people were 'eliminated' in the 30's by Hitlers regime? Why would you not have survived in Germany if you were born blind? What kinda nonsense have you been reading?

Sacrificing what? Freedom? In "todays" day and age we've been living under terrorism for almost 3 decades.

WHAT TERRORISM? My point was that Britons were deceived and their still paying the economic penalties for allowing themselves to be.

Nazi bunker? 1945? German surrender?

He killed himself and his wife ALLEGEDLY. Feel free to provide me with conclusive proof that he in fact died by his own hand or at all.

He was giving him the choice of either shooting or cyanide pill, rommel took the pill.
My mistake on cause of death.

The fact that you imagine Rommel as 'one of his best generals' is what has me laughing. Rommel was the product of Nazi propaganda as much as he was the product of the allies not being able to deal with even 2 divisions of German troops. The logic goes that you must be fighting a super human commander with great forces or that YOU are in fact pathetic and bad at what your supposed to be doing ( winning in this case). I could find you a hundred German divisional commanders( what he really was and should have been kept as )on the East front that could have managed what he did OR BETTER.

How could they get out? The nazi's controlled the routes in and out, they stopped any jews getting out..

No Nazi's were actively trying to get all Jews out of Germany in the 30's and if the west was at all welcoming to that measure they could have all left had they wanted to. Germans got what they deserved for not seeing Hitler as the man he was as much as German Jews deserve what they got for not seeing the danger that kept telling them what he was going to do to them.It is in fact true that humans are very much responsible for much of their suffering when they choose to be deceived by rulers who care only about their own interest. It's fine feeling sorry for the stupid but please feel empathy for EVERYONE to prove that your not just primed to feel sorry for whoever CNN decided to call victims this week.

Oh he did not think that germany was a big enough threat to send the worlds largest navy to stop the germans?

What do you mean by this and how could the British Navy defend Britain against air attack or for that matter protect British field armies in France?

The facts refrences, sources and opinions that you have yet to provide about the sunburn sinking a nimitz carrier but hey just keep going on about rogue waves and mabye we'll belive you.

And i never suggested that it could or would happen every time if at all. I have provided plenty of source material which you have not responded to suggesting that the Sunburn is quite the dangerous weapon which with just a little luck might reduce even a aircraft carrier to a burnt out hulk ready for the scrap yard.

So because your older you get to treat me as inferior, ok sure I'm ok with the whole "superiority" complex you seem to have but hey. Age means nothing when you waste it.

I am treating you far better than you deserve to be treated considering the general disdain you have shown me so far and had i been less considerate concerning your age you would have seen what i do when i run into people that are old enough to know better than you clearly do not. Once you start considering treating me with the basic respect one reserves for those with the a age advantage you will notice just how 'nice' i can be in addressing your ignorance.

YES.

Well then your just deluded as you clearly do not know what you think you do. I do not rule out the possibility that a person at 17 might have managed the feat you suggest but i have never run into any of them online or anywhere else. Fact is at 17 most people lack the knowledge base and even, in the absolutely massive majority of cases, the mental maturity to come to greatly different conclusions on very many topics than their peers.

I wouldnt call learning by hand "cramming" nor traveling the world "cramming".

Well whatever you call it it's not helped you understand the second world war any better( if even close to what i knew at that stage; and had to 'unlearn' for eight years) than i did at your age so the point is moot.

Unless you went to the marine college at south tyneside I believe you have not.

Since your telling me the same things i found in most of the first books i read on the second world war i am quite correct in calling that the standard by which you have been 'educated' to be just another average; so far at least.

No you didnt miss basic history, you just chose parts of it.

And that is the point of perspective and educating yourself instead of depending on others to decide which parts are the 'truth' never giving a chance to look at all the material they base it on.

Lol pot calling kettle when it comes to propaganda, who is right and who is wrong...thats not for us to decide..

If you have not reached the age where you are willing to accept , based on your own reasoning, that some things are in fact not true ( even if it's in a book or even widely believed) then you are on the wrong forum and spending time with the wrong type of people.