How should we punish the people who are responsible for the loss of inocent life in Iraq?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He's just looking to expose the clear double standard shown by some posters here. Killing civilians is only heinous when done by people they don't like.

There's plenty of that on BOTH sides of the issue.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,122]

I think the decision to start a war has to include a judgment as to whether the original war cause is worth how many people are likely to be killed by collateral damage.

Just ignoring that, and saying "well, it's what happens in a war" is facile. It's one of the costs.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Darius11 12]

Quote

likely to be killed by collateral damage.

Likely to be killed sounds far away from the certainty that people will be killed. I find it hard to believe that any commander who has any experience would think there is a possibility that no inocent person would be killed in a war such as Iraq.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Are you arguing for a double standard?

Or maybe pointing out that it's two different situations. Collateral fatalities (I don't like "damage", it is dead people not holes on the road) is not the same as the TARGETING of civilians in a premeditated act of terror. Even you can't draw a straight line between the two adn any attempt to do so only exhibits that you're so married to your viewpoint that reality isn't allowed to intrude.

My Lai wasn't an accident or "collateral fatalities". Calley only got 3 years of house arrest for that. Of course, he's American and just killed gooks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

No ... why would that make a differfence on how I'd feel if someone killed a friend or family member?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Quote

There's plenty of that on BOTH sides of the issue.

I think, Mike, that is (or should be) a given.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[futuredivot 0]

So you're saying that one apparent travesty justifies another?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 2,400]

Let's start by getting out of there so that we don't put people in this position to begin with. Solve the problem first, in other words. Then go back and look at "who's responsible."

[futuredivot 0]

A little touch of the old "Iron Fisted Imperialism" would reduce the problem also.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Will_Evo 0]

Nasty topic you guys have going on here, but just as any situation is not discussed nothing with be learned.

I am with everyone that is saying there is a clear and definitive difference between collateral death, and targeted death. A soldier should not be personally held responsible for something he could not have prevented. Their(my) job is sadly prone to unexpected realities, including the accidental death of civilians, the very nature of the job, although not always leading to it, is prone to accidental death, it is simply just a part of the job. You can prepare, train, and plan as much as you want, but when bullets start flying by your head, and you shoot back missing by inches and hitting a civilian in the building behind the target...that's just something you cannot prevent...unless of course you prevent the conflict in the first place, but that's another topic.

**Edit to add** Much like skydiving, you can plan, prepare, train etc..but things go wrong, people are hurt and killed in this sport, we all know this, and we all continue to jump. Its an associated risk we have come to accept. Of course there are different measures we can take to prevent injury or death, but when a double mal happens, it happens, and there is not much you can do about it. of course preventing the situation all together, is to not jump. Preventing all together accidental death in war, is to not go to war.

Targeted death should be punished, knowingly killing an innocent in war is wrong. Now of course we have a big problem with our current situation because soldiers are targeting civilians, acting, and only later finding out they were not a threat after all. THAT is where the line is very blurred, and requires alot of time and research to get to an educated answer.

Anyways My 2 cents.

Zoo Crew

[warpedskydiver 0]

Case by case basis, were thay acting within their legal authority?

What were the circumstances?

Was it an accidental killing?

Was it an actual murder?

There are many questions to this and they all need to be answered before there is a grand jury

Also are the Iraqis and Insurgents also going to be tried for their crimes?

[Darius11 12]

There are many situations that can add perspective on either side.

The people we call terrorist are on their land, and the reason they use the horrific tactics they use is lack of capability. There is a way to excuse any action. I bet if the terrorists, insurgents or whatever you wish to call them had F16 they would be using them. The act of killing is the act of killing.

Please don’t take this post the wrong way, I understand that mistakes happen, and being shot at and risking your life can make you make the wrong decision. However I believe both sides can make legitimate excuses for violence. However neither sides excuse is good enough if it is your son or daughter who is the one killed.

I also think it is more rational to hold the citizens of a democratically elected country more responsible then you do citizens of a country run by dictator. For the reason that the citizens in a democratically elected country have more say in what their government does. I also feel the same way about a volunteer army compared to people who are drafted. You have more options and you have more responsibility.

I just find it odd when some look at one side as black and the other white.


Who I personally blame are the leaders who make the wrong call, and the people who no matter the facts blindly support their side, instead of putting the good of the country first.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[billvon 2,400]

>A little touch of the old "Iron Fisted Imperialism" would reduce the
>problem also.

And perhaps a bit of the old ultra-violence.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you arguing for a double standard?

Or maybe pointing out that it's two different situations. Collateral fatalities (I don't like "damage", it is dead people not holes on the road) is not the same as the TARGETING of civilians in a premeditated act of terror. Even you can't draw a straight line between the two adn any attempt to do so only exhibits that you're so married to your viewpoint that reality isn't allowed to intrude.

I agree. Intentional targeting of civilians, regardless of who does it, should be and is a crime. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that accidental deaths of either military or civilian personnel is a crime if it was due to negligence.

The fog of war is an extremely complicated issue. It's an especially complicated issue when the enemy combatants dress as civilians as opposed to wearing military uniforms. For that reason alone I would suggest not attempting to paint the issue as merely black and white.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Case by case basis, were thay acting within their legal authority?

I used Iraq because it was a war started on false reasons. No one can deny that. How the war can be viewed as legal brings up its own issues.

Quote

What were the circumstances?

Absolutely but my concern is when circumstances are only considered on one side. Both sides are reacting to their circumstance.

Quote

Was it an actual murder?

It’s either murder or manslaughter

Quote

There are many questions to this and they all need to be answered before there is a grand jury

Yes I agree.

Quote

Also are the Iraqis and Insurgents also going to be tried for their crimes?

Againts our troops?
Its kind of hard to kick down someone’s door guns blazing then complain that you got hurt while braking and entering their property don’t you think?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

We use the Fog of war to understand what a solder goes trough. Can you attempt the same understanding as to how someone can become a terrorist or a sucide bomber?

Or are you all set with they hate us because we are free?

I am all for understanding, and tolerance but when it is applied to all.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

So you're saying that one apparent travesty justifies another?

No, you said that.

I'm saying that Americans should not have a double standard depending on whether or not they like the killer or the victims more.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

We use the Fog of war to understand what a solder goes trough. Can you attempt the same understanding as to how someone can become a terrorist or a sucide bomber?

Or are you all set with they hate us because we are free?

I am all for understanding, and tolerance but when it is applied to all.

I understand completely why the terrorists/suicide bombers target civilians and I have absolutely no tolerance for such atrocities by either side.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[rushmc 18]

Fixed your supject line and

hang em, they did and he is dead

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Will_Evo 0]

I have to disagree with a point you made, "killing is killing".

Yes, a death is a death, but the motives behind them can be completely different. Using your logic in this case, you should be opposed to even legitimate death on the battlefield, because after all "killing is killing". using your logic, war should and wouldn't happen at all.(not saying I want it to, but it does)

Like in my example in my last post, an accidental death is just that, and is not the same as a legitimate target taken down in battle. Whether you wish to believe it or not, and regardless of the motive behind the war, a soldier is doing his job. The accidental death is not a "wrong decision" it was not a decision at all. I feel you would be better suited to this argument if you have ever been exposed to combat. I hate to use this saying, but it literally is "kill or be killed" in combat sometimes. As unfortunate as it is, if a bullet strays from target, goes through a wall and hits a civilian you did not know was there, it is not your fault, its an accepted risk this country and a soldier takes on when conducting war.

Like I said before, the only way to avoid this situation is to not go to war in the first place.

-Will Evo

Zoo Crew

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The accidental death is not a "wrong decision" it was not a decision at all.

Ordering the aerial bombing of a village/town/city knowing civilians are there is definitely a decision.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

I believe he and his two sons are dead already - as are many from his corrupt government

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

How should we punish these people for committing murder?

Who is or should be "We" ??

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[wmw999 2,122]

I think that everyone reading this thread should watch the movie The Hurt Locker. It's a powerful picture of how difficult this war is for both the American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So what should happen to all those responsible for the massive loss of life caused in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein was tried in court and then executed for this responsibility.

sorry, buddy, you can't attribute Lockerbie as collateral damage. There was no military target nor gain achieved.

And Kallend, a 40 yo event in the Cold War isn't applicable to today. A repeat of My Lai today would involve substantially different penalties. These days, the US oversteps its grounds by imprisoning people indefinitely, not executing them.