WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians

[Billnew]

alright, no one mentioned specifics of the video, and I am at work and 90% of video is blocked.
I have heard of a video that is of a gunner shooting civilians, full aware they are not hostile.
If this is that video, is there supporting documentation showing this gunner being cleared of wrong doing?
People snap in war, individuals will commit crimes. No country can prevent the actions of an individual. But they must be brought to justice, and punished severely. If the military punished this person and those that assisted in keeping it secret if they did. --Secret from military investigation not the media.--

Just because something disgusting happened, does not mean the world should know about every incident. Like I said before, the enemy knows how to use propaganda, undermine the war effort at home, and the troops will fail. Our troops have never lost a war in the field, all our wars are lost on the home front.

I agree, there is no reason to kill civilians that are not around hostiles engaged in a fight. The military's action after the incident is what matters. If this man is still walking the streets or even worse still in the military, then the military disgraced themselves. If this man is serving a very long sentence or is locked up in a mental institute the military needs to review the signs of unstable soldier.(general term soldier, nothing intended to single out the Army.)

Our military will win this war, if the people in Washington let them, and the people at home support the troops. Not the crazy homicidal murders, but the good men and women over there, betting their lives on picking out the friendlies versus the enemies. We are fighting the homicidal murderers, we must not allow our military to become what we are fighting against. But we can not allow 3000 people to parrish without holding the people that did it responsible, and finishing the fight, & to help the people recovering from the murders reign.

Who ever released this secret information dumped this information for the world to see, knowing the worst of the worst was in it. Their goal is to destroy the confidence of our military at home, and thus end the war. This leak was a treasonous act, and should be punished to the fullest extent of military law. (and that does include the death penalty)
Commiting another crime to tell the world about a crime, does not make your crime any less severe.

Comparison:
A man walks into a crowded mall, and opens fire killing men, women and children. Is everyone in that town scorned because of the one mans actions?
We have millions of men and women carrying fully automatic weapons daily, driving vehicles that could destroy large buildings in seconds. When one of them lose it, there will be alot of damage done. How the military acts after the fact, is what is important.

And I appolgize for going off, but all I read was information of civilian causulitys with nothing specific. The military knows US citizens and the world would be outraged if real numbers were reported. That is true in any war. If you run from a battle to avoid civilian deaths, then you might as well go home, and wait for them to make civilian casualities of our people. Which has been the policy since the 70's.
Secret militarys attack countries and the countries know who they belong too, but they have been afraid to challenge those countries. Collateral damage, killing of a crippled man on an Airplane, killing of hundreds of people in a barrakcs, terrorism is not random people coming together to take on the worlds largest countries. Its small countries spending massive amount of money building these secret armies to do their battles secretly.
RUb the countries noses in the crap they are doing and then strike them down. Maybe if we had challenged those countries in the 70's and 80's, they wouldn't have been able to kill 3000 people on 9-11. As long as the world tries to ignore the secret militarys of the small rich countries, then we will face terrorism and stronger terrorism.

I stand against murder by our military, and I demand the military prosecute them, but I will not denounce the war, and I will not support any call to withdraw from battle.
War is death, it drives good men to do disgusting things, and sometimes those men/women can not see the difference between war and war crimes. War is disgusting, killing of people that oppose you. Killing someone that stands in your way. War is killing and sometimes the mind gets screwed up and thinks war is killing all. When war is thrust upon us, we can not run. We can not get queesy because of the dark side of war,
for if we do, then we have lost the war. When we lose the war, we invite more people to thrust war upon us again next time. Maybe next time we fight on our streets, maybe next time, they will be hiding behind our school children. MAybe next time they will be shooting from our churches.
End war as soon as possible, but when someone forces you to war, never back down.

 

[Billnew]

There's no excuse there - even if they did mistake it as such an RPG, they were not in danger whatsoever.
I have been in exactly those situations, and have been over in that country serving. These soldiers acted unprofessionally, trigger happy, and should have gotten intel on the situation instead of opening fire.

Particularly with the van with the kids in it that stopped to help. There was NO reason to shoot it up like that, and they should have been taken to task by their superiors once this came out.

I agree, I was not able to see the video. So I was speaking in general terms. I have heard of some of the contents from someone at work that has heard of it.

And I again ask if in the leaked documents, does it specify what outcome for the disgraceful military personel?
If the military courtmarshaled them, then correct action was taken.
Non-military do not understand civilian casualities. They would unite against the war effort, thus causing the war to be lost, not by military but by the people at home. Thus the enemy would benfit from this secret information.
We must demand the military punish war criminals, but we must also expect the military not to disclose the failings of our human soldiers, to aid the enemy.
No one knows how they would act in violence, mass violence, until they have been there. Some will crack, some will turn into heros, some will just silently bare the scars of what they did, and what they saw in battle until the day they die. Even what the world considers legal in warfare, is still hard to live with for the indivdual. That is why we can not expect the non-military people to understand civilian deaths and must depend on the military to police their own, and I support full punisment for those that did not see justice done, in these cases.
If you let a person, that knowingly murdered civilians, get away with it, then you too, are criminal. Just as if you were right there with them when they did it. Be it the investigating officer or the review board.

 

[soblessed53]

The video clearly shows the two men rescuing a wounded man,and the van being fired upon,and it clearly shows that they were no threat, whatsoever.

The military almost without exception never prosecutes it's personnel no matter what atrocities they commit,and though not a military case, if it wasn't for reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from The Washington Post, America would have never learned about Watergate,so God Bless Journalists such as Julian Assange from Wikileaks!
The court of public opinion is the only one that will make murdering Robocops like this be prosecuted!

Consider Reagan and Ollie North they should have gone to the pen for all the international laws they broke,but NOTHING at all happened and now Ollie North is the Darling of FAUX news!

The founder of whistle-blower website Wikileaks accuses the US military of a cover-up of great magnitude regarding the civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Julian Assange defended releasing of more than 90,000 secret military files related to the US-led war in Afghanistan and said that the messenger is always criticized.

"We're familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticize the messenger," Assange told the Press Club in central London on Monday.

"We don't see any difference in the White House response to this case," added he referring to the White House fury over the leaks.

The whistle-blowing website also revealed a video showing the killing of two journalists and over a dozen civilians in a strike conducted by a US military Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007.

Wikileaks accuses US of cover-up

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

I agree, I was not able to see the video. So I was speaking in general terms. I have heard of some of the contents from someone at work that has heard of it.

And I again ask if in the leaked documents, does it specify what outcome for the disgraceful military personel?
If the military courtmarshaled them, then correct action was taken.
Non-military do not understand civilian casualities. They would unite against the war effort, thus causing the war to be lost, not by military but by the people at home. Thus the enemy would benfit from this secret information.
We must demand the military punish war criminals, but we must also expect the military not to disclose the failings of our human soldiers, to aid the enemy.
No one knows how they would act in violence, mass violence, until they have been there. Some will crack, some will turn into heros, some will just silently bare the scars of what they did, and what they saw in battle until the day they die. Even what the world considers legal in warfare, is still hard to live with for the indivdual. That is why we can not expect the non-military people to understand civilian deaths and must depend on the military to police their own, and I support full punisment for those that did not see justice done, in these cases.
If you let a person, that knowingly murdered civilians, get away with it, then you too, are criminal. Just as if you were right there with them when they did it. Be it the investigating officer or the review board.

Noy entirely sure, but IIRC, they recieved no punishment, and there is evidence that the military tried to cover the entire thing up.

 

[DeathMagus]

People don't understand what war is. It isn't marching out to the clearing and shooting at each others arms and legs until one side says uncle. Neither side wears a white hat.
Armed combatants run and dodge between civilians to keep from being killed. They shoot at oour soldiers from occupied houses. They pull their men out and then take pictures of the dead family that lived there.
Dead civilians are great propaganda for our enemy.

Civilians can't handle the truth about war. People die. Civilians die. People with cameras die, because people with nervous trigger fingers see a Surface to air missle launcher.

Carrying a rifle in a hostile area can bring down a hail of gunfire.

This is exactly the reason we do not publish this information. People sitting in their easy chair, in no danger, never having to face a kill or be killed situation decide that a simple mistake is the worst of warcrimes.

You have mere seconds to decide if the person that just turned on you is holding a cell phone or a pistol. If that person is a reporter with a camera pointed at you, or a missle launcher about to destroy you.

If you want a war with no civilian casualties, then talk all sides into going out in some distant field to face each other, and stand their and shoot until one side is gone. It won't happen. The smaller forces will always hide behind the skirts of women and use children as shields. Their leaders will always use the killing of these people against the larger force. Simple people will fall for it every time. War is death. DOn't want to kill someone? Then don't go to war.
Every friendly fire incident, or fire into civilians, is investigated, and if improper it will be prosecuted. Most killings are accidents, you play with high explosives with nervous people, people will die, & not always the right ones.
Sorry to disappoint you. There is no innocent war. There is no army riding in on white horses, withdrawing from fire so that civilians won't be hurt. When someone shoots at you, you shoot back. Civilians will be killed. Its the nature of the beast.
Oour enemy knows this, they also know that our people are ignorant to the facts of war. Our people believe that our smart weapons can explode and hit only those that would do us harm.

The camera probably shows the whole incident, but I bet it only shows the worst of the US side. It doesn't show what led to the incident.
Stop being a pawn for the enemy. Think about our civilian casualties on 9-11. You can decry Iraq as not being linked to 9-11. But by all counts, Afganistan is linked. So when you cry over their dead, don't forget about our dead. They killed 3000 people that day. We had to go to war, or thousands more would have been killed in further attacks. We didn't want this war, but we won't back down from it either.

Get over it. People die in war. We try not to hit civilians, but alot of the time we don't have the luxury of being an arm chair quarterback and decide if the person whos life was in danger acted appropriately. Thats why the military investigates and prosecutes their own. They know what is normal, what is a mistake, and what is criminal.

I am still waiting for anything shocking to come out of this leak.

Our military kills civilians and hides that from the innocent minds of our people, who can't understand why a child is killed. Every war this has been done. Revolutionary war, Civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,
and every conflict since then.

This is exactly why it's important for information like this to be published. The public is apathetic about war because the government hides how bad it actually is on a regular basis. War is really never something we should be apathetic about, because choosing to go to war in this day and age means that civilians will die. Men and women and children will all die, and we'd damn well better have a good reason to be fighting such a war if that's the cost.

The government hides the carnage of war precisely to make it easy for the public to go along with conflicts they have no personal investment in. So when you say "Civilians can't handle the truth about war", you're flat-out wrong. What is really the case is that "Civilians won't stand for a war of dubious nature without being manipulated into believing a false image of what the war will entail."

In short, your point that "war is hell" is spot-on. Your ensuing argument that, because of this, the truth of war should be hidden from the public is completely backwards.

Our troops have never lost a war in the field, all our wars are lost on the home front.

A war is not "lost on the home front" if the citizens decide that the war was a stupid idea and shouldn't be continued. Ceasing to implement a bad idea is not "losing".

Our military will win this war, if the people in Washington let them, and the people at home support the troops.

No it won't. It's a war against an idea, an ideology. We have no specific targets - we just have a list of people and groups that we consider ideologists. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan have to build a government, they have to support that government, and that government has to adequately stand up to outside (and internal) threats on it's own. We can help them do none of these things with our military.

 

[ulu]

. But we can not allow 3000 people to parrish without holding the people that did it responsible, and finishing the fight, & to help the people recovering from the murders reign.
.

Unfortunately spending a fortune in afghanistan doesn't do anything towards that. It adds to the damage from 9/11.

 

[soblessed53]

How many believe we will be told that these men committed suicide,like all "enemies of the state" do? The most recent that I recall- The government's own Anthrax scientist,and The Capital Hill Madam!

Pentagon: Leak probe may go beyond military

Gates: Leak probe may go beyond military - U.S. news - Security - msnbc.com

 

[Billnew]

The video clearly shows the two men rescuing a wounded man,and the van being fired upon,and it clearly shows that they were no threat, whatsoever.

The military almost without exception never prosecutes it's personnel no matter what atrocities they commit,and though not a military case, if it wasn't for reporters like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from The Washington Post, America would have never learned about Watergate,so God Bless Journalists such as Julian Assange from Wikileaks!
The court of public opinion is the only one that will make murdering Robocops like this be prosecuted!

Consider Reagan and Ollie North they should have gone to the pen for all the international laws they broke,but NOTHING at all happened and now Ollie North is the Darling of FAUX news!

The founder of whistle-blower website Wikileaks accuses the US military of a cover-up of great magnitude regarding the civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Julian Assange defended releasing of more than 90,000 secret military files related to the US-led war in Afghanistan and said that the messenger is always criticized.

"We're familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticize the messenger," Assange told the Press Club in central London on Monday.

"We don't see any difference in the White House response to this case," added he referring to the White House fury over the leaks.

The whistle-blowing website also revealed a video showing the killing of two journalists and over a dozen civilians in a strike conducted by a US military Apache helicopter in Baghdad in 2007.

Wikileaks accuses US of cover-up

I can not see video on my computer. Like I said in my second post.
Until the Media investigates and verifys no approprate punishment was given, then I will hold my disgust for the military.
I do give a thumbs up for holding this administration to the same standard as the previous. As it should be.

This is exactly why it's important for information like this to be published. The public is apathetic about war because the government hides how bad it actually is on a regular basis. War is really never something we should be apathetic about, because choosing to go to war in this day and age means that civilians will die. Men and women and children will all die, and we'd damn well better have a good reason to be fighting such a war if that's the cost.

The government hides the carnage of war precisely to make it easy for the public to go along with conflicts they have no personal investment in. So when you say "Civilians can't handle the truth about war", you're flat-out wrong. What is really the case is that "Civilians won't stand for a war of dubious nature without being manipulated into believing a false image of what the war will entail."

In short, your point that "war is hell" is spot-on. Your ensuing argument that, because of this, the truth of war should be hidden from the public is completely backwards.


A war is not "lost on the home front" if the citizens decide that the war was a stupid idea and shouldn't be continued. Ceasing to implement a bad idea is not "losing".

No it won't. It's a war against an idea, an ideology. We have no specific targets - we just have a list of people and groups that we consider ideologists. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan have to build a government, they have to support that government, and that government has to adequately stand up to outside (and internal) threats on it's own. We can help them do none of these things with our military.

I must respectfully disagree.
WWII, Pearl Harbor gave the country a great reason to charge into WWII, but if the people at home saw the real cost of war, the dead women and children from the unending bombing they would have called for surrender
or demanded the goverment change their tactics, that would have led to losing the war.
Peaceful people have no stomach to see the costs of war. If it isn't all
heroic's noble men sweeping in to save a town from being massacred by the evil enemy, that red blooded Americans could accidently kill a building full of orphans with a misplaced mortar, or intentionally mowing down enemy troops that tried to surrender after a long bloody battle.
These are realities in war. Individuals will snap, they will kill when they shouldn't. We must demand that the military investigate, and punish those that commit the crimes in war. If they do not, then we must demand that our goverment force the military to do it, or replace the people in charge until it is done.
The people will never be able to tolerate seeing a dead child. They would flee in terror to know that our troops did this. Even accidentally. People's spirit was weakened by the continued death toll of our troops in Iraq. How would they have acted if they saw continued display of hundreds of civilians killed in battle?

Pearl Harbor-Japan attacked our country without warning, they came close to wiping out our Navy. Thousands were killed that sunday morning.

9-11: Secret military forces acting from instructions from Afgansitan and other places, brutally attacked our country killing 3000 civilians, men women and children. But we don't even have the backbone to fight a war
after this? What kind of country can't stand to fight a war against people that attack our peaceful civilians on airliners?

I offer, the peaceful people of these United States can not handle the truth of war. They would flee from it until those murdered civilians are in our streets. Then it would be to late.
We must demand our military do everything it can to limit civilian casualitys, and punish or lock away in mental institutes those that kill for no reason.

We must demand the military prosecute war crimes of their own, but
the military will never be able to tell all the information of events.
All wars in our history were edited to make them more palitable to the people. That is why the media has so much power in conflict.
Great victories or agonizing defeats is all in how the reporter dishes out the story.

The D-day victory: Who at home would have looked at the aftermath of D-day, the ocean red with blood, the piles of bodies on the shores, thousands wiped out trying to run onto the beach while they were mowed down by machine gun fire.
If the aftermath of D-day was shown at home, it would have been a propaganda nightmare. The war effort would have had a major set back.
But then again, it was probably a war of dubious nature.

 

[soblessed53]

I can not see video on my computer. Like I said in my second post.
Until the Media investigates and verifys no approprate punishment was given, then I will hold my disgust for the military.
I do give a thumbs up for holding this administration to the same standard as the previous. As it should be.


I must respectfully disagree.
WWII, Pearl Harbor gave the country a great reason to charge into WWII, but if the people at home saw the real cost of war, the dead women and children from the unending bombing they would have called for surrender
or demanded the goverment change their tactics, that would have led to losing the war.
Peaceful people have no stomach to see the costs of war. If it isn't all
heroic's noble men sweeping in to save a town from being massacred by the evil enemy, that red blooded Americans could accidently kill a building full of orphans with a misplaced mortar, or intentionally mowing down enemy troops that tried to surrender after a long bloody battle.
These are realities in war. Individuals will snap, they will kill when they shouldn't. We must demand that the military investigate, and punish those that commit the crimes in war. If they do not, then we must demand that our goverment force the military to do it, or replace the people in charge until it is done.
The people will never be able to tolerate seeing a dead child. They would flee in terror to know that our troops did this. Even accidentally. People's spirit was weakened by the continued death toll of our troops in Iraq. How would they have acted if they saw continued display of hundreds of civilians killed in battle?

Pearl Harbor-Japan attacked our country without warning, they came close to wiping out our Navy. Thousands were killed that sunday morning.

9-11: Secret military forces acting from instructions from Afgansitan and other places, brutally attacked our country killing 3000 civilians, men women and children. But we don't even have the backbone to fight a war
after this? What kind of country can't stand to fight a war against people that attack our peaceful civilians on airliners?

I offer, the peaceful people of these United States can not handle the truth of war. They would flee from it until those murdered civilians are in our streets. Then it would be to late.
We must demand our military do everything it can to limit civilian casualitys, and punish or lock away in mental institutes those that kill for no reason.

We must demand the military prosecute war crimes of their own, but
the military will never be able to tell all the information of events.
All wars in our history were edited to make them more palitable to the people. That is why the media has so much power in conflict.
Great victories or agonizing defeats is all in how the reporter dishes out the story.

The D-day victory: Who at home would have looked at the aftermath of D-day, the ocean red with blood, the piles of bodies on the shores, thousands wiped out trying to run onto the beach while they were mowed down by machine gun fire.
If the aftermath of D-day was shown at home, it would have been a propaganda nightmare. The war effort would have had a major set back.
But then again, it was probably a war of dubious nature.

Exactly,and what did Jesus teach about violence?
If this country were TRULY Christian,there would have been no cause for worry!

Man insists on taking control,instead of leaving control in God's hands and believing and 'TRUSTING' in Him, which is SIN,and there are ALWAYS consequences for SIN!

 

[DanielRB]

This thread has got me thinking about a larger issue...perhaps more appropriate for a philosophy forum, perhaps, but I'll post it here.

When is the line crossed between being a "good guy" and a "bad guy"? When is taking action that leads to civilian casualties a "war crime" and when is it "collateral damage?"

I remember reading Liddell Scott's history of World War II, when the RAF had a starkly different view of strategic bombing than the USAAC. The British leadership expressed, using the exact words, a strategic bombing campaign to "terrorize" the Germans into surrendering. The US Army Air Corps wanted to concentrate on weapons factories and other strategic infrastructure. At the end of the day, it was found that the US strategy was more often followed.

However, consider the use of the first Atomic weapons: in full knowledge of what we were doing, we intentionally killed tens of thousands of civilians in order to make the Japanese feel so helpless that they feel they must capitulate. We did this to avoid an extremely costly land invasion of Japan, that would have no doubt resulted in many more hundreds of thousands of casualties, both American and Japanese.

Was this justified? Was the terror we inflicted on Japan a necessary act in order to end the war?

How do we measure the morality of these actions? Is it that it's ok to kill non-combatants if we believe it ultimately will end up avoiding more killing? Is it ok to take actions that maybe don't directly target civilians, but the killing of civilians becomes unavoidable in that context?

Is strategic bombing of cities ever ok? If so, how different are we from AQ and OBL?

 

[ulu]

IMO if the war is justified, then using any means to win it is OK. If the war's not justified (eg you're attacking for profit, or because you believe the country in question should follow your government model or religion) then every person you kill there, directly or indirectly, is unjustly murdered.

 

[DanielRB]

IMO if the war is justified, then using any means to win it is OK. If the war's not justified (eg you're attacking for profit, or because you believe the country in question should follow your government model or religion) then every person you kill there, directly or indirectly, is unjustly murdered.

I can't agree that "any means" to win is ok. That would mean genocide, using child soliders, mass killing of civilians, or any other means would be ok. There are rules, even in war...maybe ESPECIALLY in war.

Would the allies be justified in killing EVERY German or Japanese in WW II to win?

 

[nolongerhome]

IMO if the war is justified, then using any means to win it is OK. If the war's not justified (eg you're attacking for profit, or because you believe the country in question should follow your government model or religion) then every person you kill there, directly or indirectly, is unjustly murdered.

So... you would be fine with the USA using nuclear weapons to wipe out an entire population of people if you thought the was a legitimate reason for them to go to war?

 

[Axioma]

Using "any means" is an excellent way to dejustify any war you may be fighting.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I remember a couple of years ago when a Marine LCpl was villified by the world for shooting a man that was laying on the ground while passing by him. They called for his head and wanted him put up for a war crime. Come to find out, he did it based on what had happened before; several times Iraqis(or insurgents) would lay as if they are dead or severly wounded and then set off a grenade or suicide bomb and kill troops passing by. He was just making sure that didn't happen to their patrol.

There are so many variables in war today, and US troops are strapped down with so many rules on how to conduct "gentle" combat and things of that nature.

Another example. Let's say someone opens fire on my team and they run into a building and still fire back. I tell my team to open fire and after we neutralize the target, we find out several chidlren were killed because they had ran into a school building. By the way people are posting here, we should be brought up on war crimes because we killed school children even though there were mitigating factors involved. The headlines in all the papers would read we opened fire on a schoolhouse and killed several children; they'll leave out the little fact that we were being fired upon by one(or several individuals) who ran inside and continue to open fire on us.

Therefore, the conclusion I can see is this. A 100 military troops' lives are worth less, than 1 civilian plain and simple. That's the consensus I'm getting from most everyone here.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I remember a couple of years ago when a Marine LCpl was villified by the world for shooting a man that was laying on the ground while passing by him. They called for his head and wanted him put up for a war crime. Come to find out, he did it based on what had happened before; several times Iraqis(or insurgents) would lay as if they are dead or severly wounded and then set off a grenade or suicide bomb and kill troops passing by. He was just making sure that didn't happen to their patrol.

There are so many variables in war today, and US troops are strapped down with so many rules on how to conduct "gentle" combat and things of that nature.

Another example. Let's say someone opens fire on my team and they run into a building and still fire back. I tell my team to open fire and after we neutralize the target, we find out several chidlren were killed because they had ran into a school building. By the way people are posting here, we should be brought up on war crimes because we killed school children even though there were mitigating factors involved. The headlines in all the papers would read we opened fire on a schoolhouse and killed several children; they'll leave out the little fact that we were being fired upon by one(or several individuals) who ran inside and continue to open fire on us.

Therefore, the conclusion I can see is this. A 100 military troops' lives are worth less, than 1 civilian plain and simple. That's the consensus I'm getting from most everyone here.

I see where you're coming from, but you can't just go blowing up every building just because there might be terrorists inside. All a heavy-handed approach does is make people angry, and the more angry people there are, the more people are going to bomb you. There's a small population of nutters out there, but if you read on the news about, say, a Palestinian suicide bomber, they almost always give as a reason a close relative or friend was killed by an Israeli airstrike or raid. If soldiers were more careful around civilians, there'd probably be fewer people who wanted to murder them at any cost.

 

[ACougar]

Armies are built to destroy threats... they are not normally designed to build nations. If the government started dropping 500 pound bombs on Los Angeles to deal with the gang problem there... it wouldn't be long before all of the gangs territory had been turned to rubble and any surviving gang members would be in hiding. Most Americans would also see the government as being worse than the gangs and I doubt that government would last very long.

In Afganistan we have to hold back criminal gangs that still enjoy safe haven in Pakistan and receive some support from elements of both the Pakistani and Iranian government. While were holding these criminal elements back we are trying to create a space for Afganistanies to build a government stong enough to deal with the Taliban and Al Quada without our direct help.

With technology the way it is today... nuclear, chemical, biological and other threats capable of killing hundreds of millions... the world can no longer afford lawless regions in which global terrorist groups like Al Quada can find safe haven. Any government that supports terror groups who seek to employ WMD against primarily civilian targets must be destroyed. Any region on earth where a government is incapable of controling these terrorist elements must be secured and a government must be established/enhanced that is capable of suppressing these terrorist organizations.

Killing people is easy, convincing them that they no longer need fear the bad guys and that you will help them establish a government better than any they have known before is a whole lot harder... especially if your out there killing hundreds of innocent civilians every year trying to track down the bad guys.

 

[ulu]

I can't agree that "any means" to win is ok. That would mean genocide, using child soliders, mass killing of civilians, or any other means would be ok. There are rules, even in war...maybe ESPECIALLY in war.

Would the allies be justified in killing EVERY German or Japanese in WW II to win?

So... you would be fine with the USA using nuclear weapons to wipe out an entire population of people if you thought the was a legitimate reason for them to go to war?

Like I said, IMO all's fair in love and war. Using your own child soldiers, no. If civilians must die to win the war, so be it.

I would have no problem with nukes, except for the fact that they also negatively affect countries around the world not involved in the conflict with their radioactive fallout. For that reason I'd be against their use.

The rules and regs in place now for the US in afghanistan ensure that it will not end during my lifetime.

War is something to be avoided if at all possible. Once you commit to it, do what you must to ensure that you live and the opposition dies or gives up.

Trying to fight "nice" is insane.

 

[nolongerhome]

Like I said, IMO all's fair in love and war. Using your own child soldiers, no. If civilians must die to win the war, so be it.

I would have no problem with nukes, except for the fact that they also negatively affect countries around the world not involved in the conflict with their radioactive fallout. For that reason I'd be against their use.

The rules and regs in place now for the US in afghanistan ensure that it will not end during my lifetime.

War is something to be avoided if at all possible. Once you commit to it, do what you must to ensure that you live and the opposition dies or gives up.

Trying to fight "nice" is insane.

No, the use of nuclear weapons is insane.

 

[Billnew]

IMO if the war is justified, then using any means to win it is OK. If the war's not justified (eg you're attacking for profit, or because you believe the country in question should follow your government model or religion) then every person you kill there, directly or indirectly, is unjustly murdered.

I disagree also. War can not be sanitized/civilize war, but we also do not need to destroy everything including people in pursuit of the end of war.
Civilian casualties must be avoided, but the war must be fought and won.
Civilians do not understand the life and death decisions every person must make. Investigate possible crimes, punish those criminals that go to far.

By saying any means is justified, then Hitler's actions would have been alright?

I remember a couple of years ago when a Marine LCpl was villified by the world for shooting a man that was laying on the ground while passing by him. They called for his head and wanted him put up for a war crime. Come to find out, he did it based on what had happened before; several times Iraqis(or insurgents) would lay as if they are dead or severly wounded and then set off a grenade or suicide bomb and kill troops passing by. He was just making sure that didn't happen to their patrol.

There are so many variables in war today, and US troops are strapped down with so many rules on how to conduct "gentle" combat and things of that nature.

Another example. Let's say someone opens fire on my team and they run into a building and still fire back. I tell my team to open fire and after we neutralize the target, we find out several chidlren were killed because they had ran into a school building. By the way people are posting here, we should be brought up on war crimes because we killed school children even though there were mitigating factors involved. The headlines in all the papers would read we opened fire on a schoolhouse and killed several children; they'll leave out the little fact that we were being fired upon by one(or several individuals) who ran inside and continue to open fire on us.

Therefore, the conclusion I can see is this. A 100 military troops' lives are worth less, than 1 civilian plain and simple. That's the consensus I'm getting from most everyone here.

All accusations need to be investigated, and determined on that case, wether a crime was comitted, if the crime was inexcusable.
Kicking in a door and shooting a teen that was holding a broom at port arms, is a crime, but when in conflict it will happen, and must be forgiven.

Flying through a village of peaceful civilians gunning them down is inexcusable. But then again, it must be investigated and crime determined, then the indivuals punished.

Rape pillage and burn is a slogan of wars of old, but should not be a part of any modern military.
Death will happen, but we expect our military members to act as best they can while being involved in war.