Aubrey: My point is that regarding psy-ops, there are priorities. It's more important to make sure no news of military crimes reaches the home population than to improve the facade of the military in the "theater". If something bad has been done, you can always call it a "tragic cock-up". In fact, it's an extremely common excuse these days. One would almost have to have institutionalised it to reach this massive number of "tragic cock-ups". It's the same with the SWAT teams killing sleeping little girls in the US. Once someone sat down and checked how often operations resulted in "tragic cock-ups", they found that it was a very significant part of them. Furthermore, it also depended on how well liked the victim of the operation was: The less liked, the higher the frequency of "tragic cock-ups".
The fact is that "tragic cock-up" is a way for the police and the military to get away with whatever they like. It is systematically used to excuse absolutely everything that happens. The question is why this is accepted. Any organisation where "tragic cock-ups" are so common would be better off changing its entire leadership. It just can't be reasonable that calling something a "tragic cock-up" means the debate about the event ends, or that they are so common.
Aubrey: My point is that regarding psy-ops, there are priorities. It's more important to make sure no news of military crimes reaches the home population than to improve the facade of the military in the "theater". If something bad has been done, you can always call it a "tragic c@%%-up". In fact, it's an extremely common excuse these days. One would almost have to have institutionalised it to reach this massive number of "tragic c@%%-ups". It's the same with the SWAT teams killing sleeping little girls in the US. Once someone sat down and checked how often operations resulted in "tragic c@%%-ups", they found that it was a very significant part of them. Furthermore, it also depended on how well liked the victim of the operation was: The less liked, the higher the frequency of "tragic c@%%-ups".
The fact is that "tragic c@%%-up" is a way for the police and the military to get away with whatever they like. It is systematically used to excuse absolutely everything that happens. The question is why this is accepted. Any organisation where "tragic c@%%-ups" are so common would be better off changing its entire leadership. It just can't be reasonable that calling something a "tragic c@%%-up" means the debate about the event ends, or that they are so common.
My thoughts exactly.
yellowdingo, just a question for you. If your father died of cancer, and I refered to him exclusively as Bozo the Cancer-Monkey, would that be OK? After all, he wouldn't be alive to be offended.Thank you for the outloud laugh. I really needed that.
Your thoughts, Dingo?
|
yellowdingo, just a question for you. If your father died of cancer, and I refered to him exclusively as Bozo the Cancer-Monkey, would that be OK? After all, he wouldn't be alive to be offended.
But then you wouldnt do something like go out of your way to insult me and mine. That would just make you look stupid and ignorant. I on the Otherhand am not doing that, rather I am belittling her murderers and anyone who advocates what they did as acceptable.
PS My Father is Dead. It is the defining source of my hostility and hatred for the last two decades. His death drives me forward...
|
But then you wouldnt do something like go out of your way to insult me and mine. That would just make you look stupid and ignorant. I on the Otherhand am not doing that
Except you are. You're calling her Smurfette, for no other reason that to make your avatar look like a smurf. That's pretty damn insulting.
My thoughts exactly.Aubrey: My point is that regarding psy-ops, there are priorities. It's more important to make sure no news of military crimes reaches the home population than to improve the facade of the military in the "theater". If something bad has been done, you can always call it a "tragic c@%%-up". In fact, it's an extremely common excuse these days. One would almost have to have institutionalised it to reach this massive number of "tragic c@%%-ups". It's the same with the SWAT teams killing sleeping little girls in the US. Once someone sat down and checked how often operations resulted in "tragic c@%%-ups", they found that it was a very significant part of them. Furthermore, it also depended on how well liked the victim of the operation was: The less liked, the higher the frequency of "tragic c@%%-ups".
The fact is that "tragic c@%%-up" is a way for the police and the military to get away with whatever they like. It is systematically used to excuse absolutely everything that happens. The question is why this is accepted. Any organisation where "tragic c@%%-ups" are so common would be better off changing its entire leadership. It just can't be reasonable that calling something a "tragic c@%%-up" means the debate about the event ends, or that they are so common.
OK I am trying to understand something here. Are you saying that a rescue attempt should not have been made? and if so why?
This was a horribly tragic accident and I am sure that the person that threw the grenade is being held responsable and even if they arn't being held over a hot bed of burning coals as penance for their all to human error I think it's being lost in the wash here that her kidnappers are ulimatly responsable for ALL of this, her death most of all.
MAYBE I am reading these posts in the wrong context but your blameing the people that tried to help her not the ones that caused it to begin with. Thats as illogical as fileing a lawsuit against someone that gave you CPR and saved your life but bruised your ribs in the process. \
If I am missing something then I very patiently await a more simplistic explanation so I can better understand why blame is being heaped upon people that risked their lives to try and do good.
|
|
Actually, I think what he is saying is that this wasn't a rescue attempt at all but they just went in and killed everyone because they were soldiers and that is what they do, to get revenge for.... something. And then psyops went and said it was a rescue after all and that it was all an accident sorry bwahahaha fooled them! But that doesn't really make sense either.
|
John and Lorna Norgrove were speaking at home on the Isle of Lewis in an interview with a family friend.
They said they were ''immensely proud'' of their daughter's humanitarian work with the Afghan people and did not want to enter a ''blame game'' on how she died.
Family and friends attending the island funeral of British aid worker Linda Norgrove have heard how she made the "best use of her life".
Penelope Hamilton, who conducted a humanist service in the Uig community centre, Lewis, said it was hard to accept Miss Norgrove's death.
She added: "We're in shock, numb with so many things left undone and unsaid."
Miss Norgrove, 36, died during a US-led rescue mission to free her from her captors in Afghanistan.
At the time of her death, the Scot was working for American-based aid organisation Development Alternatives Inc (DAI).
She was kidnapped in the Dewagal valley in the Kunar province on 26 September while looking into the development of agricultural projects in the east of Afghanistan.
Family spokeswoman Jane Cumming said Miss Norgrove would be buried at the cemetery in Ardroil, not far from her home village of Mangersta.
During the funeral, Ms Hamilton added: "Linda's family will enjoy talking about her, even if it's sometimes upsetting.
"She'll always be in their thoughts in any case and she'll always remain an important part of their lives.
"Linda's humanity, hopes and ideals have long been abroad in the world and we commit these to our minds, our wills and our hearts. Her qualities and example will always remain with us.
"Linda's life contributed far more than a little to the world. In addition, for the future, the determination of her family and community - here in Lewis, in Afghanistan, and worldwide - will ensure that she will be among the influences that pass from age to age in fruitfulness and blessing."
Linda Norgrove as a young woman (courtesy of the Linda Norgrove Foundation) Linda Norgrove as a young woman enjoying activities overseas
The funeral began with music from the various countries and continents where Ms Norgrove studied and worked, including Mexico, Africa, Peru and Afghanistan.
It was followed by an American traditional gospel song, translated into and sung in Gaelic.
A colleague from aid group DAI was due to speak in tribute to Miss Norgrove, who was described as "caring and compassionate".
The Norgroves asked for the funeral to be family and friends only and that no flowers be sent.
Instead, they asked for donations to The Linda Norgrove Foundation, which has been set up to continue the work she was doing in Afghanistan.
It will fund women and family-orientated schemes in the war-ravaged country.
The foundation will provide specific funding for projects such as scholarships for Afghan women to attend universities and to set up children's orphanages and specific girls' schools.
Miss Norgrove's remains were flown back to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire.
An inquest into her death was opened and adjourned by Wiltshire coroner David Ridley last week.
It was originally thought Miss Norgrove had died at the hands of her captors during a US-led rescue attempt but it has since emerged a US grenade may have been to blame.
A joint US/UK military inquiry into her death is currently under way.
It is being led by Brig Rob Nitsch, the head of Joint Force Support, UK Forces Afghanistan, and senior US investigating officer Maj Gen Joseph Votel.
My thoughts exactly.Aubrey: My point is that regarding psy-ops, there are priorities. It's more important to make sure no news of military crimes reaches the home population than to improve the facade of the military in the "theater". If something bad has been done, you can always call it a "tragic c@%%-up". In fact, it's an extremely common excuse these days. One would almost have to have institutionalised it to reach this massive number of "tragic c@%%-ups". It's the same with the SWAT teams killing sleeping little girls in the US. Once someone sat down and checked how often operations resulted in "tragic c@%%-ups", they found that it was a very significant part of them. Furthermore, it also depended on how well liked the victim of the operation was: The less liked, the higher the frequency of "tragic c@%%-ups".
The fact is that "tragic c@%%-up" is a way for the police and the military to get away with whatever they like. It is systematically used to excuse absolutely everything that happens. The question is why this is accepted. Any organisation where "tragic c@%%-ups" are so common would be better off changing its entire leadership. It just can't be reasonable that calling something a "tragic c@%%-up" means the debate about the event ends, or that they are so common.
OK I am trying to understand something here. Are you saying that a rescue attempt should not have been made? and if so why?
This was a horribly tragic accident and I am sure that the person that threw the grenade is being held responsable and even if they arn't being held over a hot bed of burning coals as penance for their all to human error I think it's being lost in the wash here that her kidnappers are ulimatly responsable for ALL of this, her death most of all.
MAYBE I am reading these posts in the wrong context but your blameing the people that tried to help her not the ones that caused it to begin with. Thats as illogical as fileing a lawsuit against someone that...
There's a difference between bruising someone's ribs and pounding on their chest until it collapses. Good intentions are very important, and I don't doubt the rescue team went in there with them. They walked out with an inconvienent corpse that flies in the face of their attempts. Sure, the kidnappers are to blame originally. They are also quite dead, I'm sure, as they should be. While I will hold any true condemnation towards the rescue party until after the investigation is over(and will we even hear about it? Is one even being done, or is the paperwork just being signed and faxed and those involved hoping we all forget?), I have to point you back towards Sissyl's comments, particularly the last paragraph. My problem is with the increasing shrugged-shoulders attitude towards "Tragic f%&!ups", that they are becoming far too common, and the public is becoming far too used to them.
If the soldiers actually did what was said: Went there to save her, took greater risks to save her, and accidentally killed her with a grenade, that's fine. Accidents happen.
However, rescuing hostages is a pretty low priority. The war doesn't hinge on whether she is rescued or ignored. Meanwhile, killing hostage takers is a high priority, because the US military does find it inconvenient that some people take hostages. The correct response to that is to kill the enemy - but taking risks to save hostages is a problem. Thus, killing everyone in the compound is easier, and will probably be the decided tactics. If nothing else, using frag grenades when trying to save a hostage is Bad (tm). That's not how you save someone, that's how you make corpses.
We don't know if it's a "tragic cock-up" or the result of ice-cold, murderous tactics. There are things that point to the second. But no matter what: You claiming it's a "tragic cock-up" is irrelevant, because you have nothing to support such a claim. Lay off the patriotic language, quit defending everything the military does without reliable information, and we can agree that we'll need to know more.
|
|
If the soldiers actually did what was said: Went there to save her, took greater risks to save her, and accidentally killed her with a grenade, that's fine. Accidents happen.
However, rescuing hostages is a pretty low priority. The war doesn't hinge on whether she is rescued or ignored. Meanwhile, killing hostage takers is a high priority, because the US military does find it inconvenient that some people take hostages. The correct response to that is to kill the enemy - but taking risks to save hostages is a problem. Thus, killing everyone in the compound is easier, and will probably be the decided tactics. If nothing else, using frag grenades when trying to save a hostage is Bad (tm). That's not how you save someone, that's how you make corpses.
We don't know if it's a "tragic c~!&-up" or the result of ice-cold, murderous tactics. There are things that point to the second. But no matter what: You claiming it's a "tragic c~!&-up" is irrelevant, because you have nothing to support such a claim. Lay off the patriotic language, quit defending everything the military does without reliable information, and we can agree that we'll need to know more.
Well, it cuts both ways. You clearly know jack about what happened as well but you are very confidently telling us that the military is populated by psychopaths protected by the secret state, and that this is symptomatic. Based on.... Nothing but prejudice.
And it isn't patriotic language - I'm not American, I'm British and American soldiers killed (by accident) one of my fellow countrymen. I'm calling it a cock-up because, in my life experience, cock-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies. You can call me naive if you like but frankly when you throw lethal force about, accidents happen (as plenty of friendly fire incidents, among other things, make clear). We know these things happen, together with stuff like Abu Graib (sp?) prison and other less than flattering things, and it gets reported. Of course the military tries to cover up its mistakes from time to time - and we know of examples, indicating the truth comes out in the liberal democracies in which we live. But is every instance a psyops conspiracy? Is this instance? I don't see it. We know that she was killed by her rescuers, and we know it is being investigated. Actually, they may have been trying to rescue her because it may have been a bit of good publicity. Maybe the commanders actually wanted to do some good. Frankly, given the initial stuff about the suicide vest which lasted about a day, any attempt to cover up was quickly quashed. So where is the hidden angle? You have nothing to offer but biased generalities.
I'm not very bothered by your views, but I am bored by them. This is like being stuck on a long journey with a guy banging on about the grassy knoll.
|
|
But this should be the defining realization that the US forces in Afghanistan are on the wrong path and that despite the decade of Carnage validated by the need sate the mob's desire for revenge at a nameless and unidentified enemy, the roll of this woman as a peace maker in the region was spittle in the face of that mad rampage.
The USA needs to beat its people over the head with a sledgehammer that their presence in Afghanistan shouldnt have involved any weapon more leathal than Tazers and sleep gas.
It needed to be backed up by the idea that Revenge is a Warcrime you can all be guilty of, and Law requires your loyalty, not Regime.
If you want to validate what has happened in Afghanistan over the last ten years then sure - They are all resisting arrest under charge of Treason for having assaulted the State. Penalty is Death without trial.
But just remember - that also applies to you - cowering in your home, or sitting in your government office.
ANd PS they were not Taliban - they were farmers who have taken to banditry and Kidnap and Randsom - THe Taliban would have just shot her.
|
|
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
Quoted for truth.
The USA needs to beat its people over the head with a sledgehammer that their presence in Afghanistan shouldnt have involved any weapon more leathal than Tazers and sleep gas.
Speaking as a military member...F@*K that. You truely must hate us, since you obviously want us all killed without even the option of defending ourselves.
|
|
But this should be the defining realization that the US forces in Afghanistan are on the wrong path and that despite the decade of Carnage validated by the need sate the mob's desire for revenge at a nameless and unidentified enemy, the roll of this woman as a peace maker in the region was spittle in the face of that mad rampage.
I can agree that the policy in retrospect appears wrong. Certainly the distraction of Iraq allowed the Afghan conflict to get out of control. Re "sating the mob's desire for revenge" - I think it is quite legitimate, actually, to pursue the perpetrators of a terrible terrorist atrocity on your soil, if only for deterrence purposes. And I don't think this woman was making peace, she was a charity worker. Frankly, without the development of civil society in Afghanistan they will never rise out of poverty and gangsterism, and the work of such people is actually quite important.
The USA needs to beat its people over the head with a sledgehammer that their presence in Afghanistan shouldnt have involved any weapon more leathal than Tazers and sleep gas.
I'm certainly not interested in your military advice. Given that virtually every man in Afghanistan owns a weapon I find that comment a little hard to credit.
It needed to be backed up by the idea that Revenge is a Warcrime you can all be guilty of, and Law requires your loyalty, not Regime.
Bur deterrence isn't. And actually it is a recogised legal principle that actually society is entitled to punish as well as prevent crime.
If you want to validate what has happened in Afghanistan over the last ten years then sure - They are all resisting arrest under charge of Treason for having assaulted the State. Penalty is Death without trial.
See above.
But just remember - that also applies to you - cowering in your home, or sitting in your government office.
Or not. I live in a democracy. As indeed do you. I have never had the state interfere in anything lawful that I wanted to do. And as you seem capable of spouting nonsense from the safety of your redoubt, I suspect actually you are in the same position.
ANd PS they were not Taliban - they were farmers who have taken to banditry and Kidnap and Randsom - THe Taliban would have just shot her.
The term "Taliban" is nebulous. The lot who kidnapped her were basically bandits. The bunch they were about to transfer her to (and which led to the recue attempt in order to forestall that) were considerably more ideological. And, in any case, the law doesn't recognise poverty as a excuse for criminality. Because it isn't.
By the way, as an aside to all those who assumed that the army was attempting to just vaporise everyone and not trying the recue the hostages, there were actually other hostages taken by those kidnappers. They actually were all rescued. One hostage was killed, in circumstances which are being investigated. Media bais in the UK (a story is only important if it happens to a British person) somewhat obscures that fact.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So let me see if I have this straight.
After 9/11, the US waited how long before a coalition of forces went into Afganistan?
We tried asking for Bin Laden, were told to frak off, and then went in. Restrained, we went in. Following rules of engagement we don't have to, we went in. Like a civilized Western coalition, we went in.
If you had any tenous hold on reality, yd, you'd understand that the 'mob' mentality would have resulted in Afganistan roasting at a nice crispy 1000 degrees for several seconds, and the shining planes of glass wouldn't have produced anything to take this woman hostage. She'd still be alive. Would you be happy then?
Your 'mob of revenge' line simply reveals your own biases. Your posting an inflamatory thread title does the same, plus your highlights your 'look at me, please pay attention to me, I'm special.' attitude.
Reasonable people can disagree on how to approach dealing with radical Islam. When you become one, feel free to contribute something useful.
|
|
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
Quoted for truth.
Speaking as a military member...F@*K that. You truely must hate us, since you obviously want us all killed without even the option of defending ourselves.
The USA needs to beat its people over the head with a sledgehammer that their presence in Afghanistan shouldnt have involved any weapon more leathal than Tazers and sleep gas.
I just happen to expect you to conform to a code of behaviour by which the criminals (all of them - even the ones on your side) live to stand trial. If you cant sleep gass the buggers, tazer them into unconciousness, and haul them off for trial - then you dont support accountability to the rule of law, you condone lawless murder in reprisal for lawless murder.
That doesnt make you the pinacle of civilization - that makes you animals - just like them.
The question you need to ask is why did you join the millitary? A desire for Revenge? Because that instantly belittles you to the category of rabid dog.
If you aint, tell your bosses you would like the village they send you to search carpet bombed in Sleep Gas and you issued with tasers to stun any resisters so they can all be renditioned off to face questioning and trial.
Please lock this thread...
I should have flagged this when it was started.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Because we all know how well the sleep gas trick works in real life...
|
|
I just happen to expect you to conform to a code of behaviour by which the criminals (all of them - even the ones on your side) live to stand trial. If you cant sleep gass the buggers, tazer them into unconciousness, and haul them off for trial - then you dont support accountability to the rule of law, you condone lawless murder in reprisal for lawless murder.
That doesnt make you the pinacle of civilization - that makes you animals - just like them.
The question you need to ask is why did you join the millitary? A desire for Revenge? Because that instantly belittles you to the category of rabid dog.
If you aint, tell your bosses you would like the village they send you to search carpet bombed in Sleep Gas and you issued with tasers to stun any resisters so they can all be renditioned off to face questioning and trial.
What you are talking about would be nice but it isn't possible technologically. And it probably isn't practical if the other side is trying very hard to kill you - what the police can pull off in a civilian setting is not very likely in a war setting. War is clearly something to be avoided but there are circumstances where it can't, particularly where the other side is truly unreasonable and happy to use violence.
And military action is not lawless - the existence (and prosecution) of war crimes makes that clear. The American military is quite legally controlled, with rules of engagement that, if they are strayed from, constitute war crimes. There is a story (possibly apocryphal) that a convoy carrying Mullah Omar to safety in Pakistan was not attacked in the initial Afghan war because the on-site lawyer in HQ wouldn't permit it without higher approval.
Ding retract the rabid dog insult...
I can only sum up my position with a old saying from a bumper sticker I saw.
"Freedom has a taste that those who have never served will never know or understand"
I am very proud of my past service and I understand in a VERY, VERY limited context what combat is about. I have never been a ground pounder but supported OUR marines on our ship during kosovo. If you have never stood a late watch when it's freezing cold and pitch black knowing that if YOU! miss something the people below desks are going to die because you failed or you have to wear a hazmat suit for days on end because the enemy is known to use poision gas as a weapon.
The only thing I know about the current involment is what my marine friends are telling me and believe me theres stuff that goes on over there that the media would have a feild day with if they knew and theres also stuff that is beyond heart warming that the media will never report. The most telling thing I can remember is from a very old afgan man that said that yes he was very happy the americans were over there becaus even with all the problems there was more security now despite the terrorist influence than there had been in the past 20 years. He saw coalition forces building roads and schools and bridges and upgradeing power plants and basically makeing life much better for everyone. The media here doesn't seem to like stories like that.
Last bit of rant here: Yellow D if you can get the bad guys to use sleep gas and tasers as a rule then I'm pretty sure that we will too until then I want our guys( and gals too, no slight intended) to rock and roll on 50. cals so hard and fast the freakin camel humping child killing terrorists come out looking like chunky salsa.
|
|
Last bit of rant here: Yellow D if you can get the bad guys to use sleep gas and tasers as a rule then I'm pretty sure that we will too until then I want our guys( and gals too, no slight intended) to rock and roll on 50. cals so hard and fast the freakin camel humping child killing terrorists come out looking like chunky salsa.
While I haven't been in a combat situation (and hope to never be in one...I have what is largely a desk job), I couldn't agree more. If you bring a whiffle bat to a gun fight, then you should expect to get shot.
Can sleep gas and tasers work? Yes, to an extent (and with a very limited range). But trying to use them against an enemy that is intent on killing you? Utterly pointless.
Last bit of rant here: Yellow D if you can get the bad guys to use sleep gas and tasers as a rule then I'm pretty sure that we will too until then I want our guys( and gals too, no slight intended) to rock and roll on 50. cals so hard and fast the freakin camel humping child killing terrorists come out looking like chunky salsa.
I thought the point of war was to have more effective weapons than the other dude. If they switch to sleeping gas and tasers, doesn't that mean we(the general we) should switch to higher cal rounds?
Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
This does not, however, make f$#%ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.
I can only sum up my position with a old saying from a bumper sticker I saw.
"Freedom has a taste that those who have never served will never know or understand"I am very proud of my past service and I understand in a VERY, VERY limited context what combat is about. I have never been a ground pounder but supported OUR marines on our ship during kosovo. If you have never stood a late watch when it's freezing cold and pitch black knowing that if YOU! miss something the people below desks are going to die because you failed or you have to wear a hazmat suit for days on end because the enemy is known to use poision gas as a weapon.
The only thing I know about the current involment is what my marine friends are telling me and believe me theres stuff that goes on over there that the media would have a feild day with if they knew and theres also stuff that is beyond heart warming that the media will never report. The most telling thing I can remember is from a very old afgan man that said that yes he was very happy the americans were over there becaus even with all the problems there was more security now despite the terrorist influence than there had been in the past 20 years. He saw coalition forces building roads and schools and bridges and upgradeing power plants and basically makeing life much better for everyone. The media here doesn't seem to like stories like that.
Last bit of rant here: Yellow D if you can get the bad guys to use sleep gas and tasers as a rule then I'm pretty sure that we will too until then I want our guys( and gals too, no slight intended) to rock and roll on 50. cals so hard and fast the freakin camel humping child killing terrorists come out looking like chunky salsa.
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.
[EDIT]WHoops. Just realized I wasnt' being clear above. When I say ST-verse, I mean STARSHIP TROOPERS not Steven Tindall. I realized after I posted that you might have thought it a personal dig- it's not. I was actually referring to the world and philosophies that came out of the setting, written, movie and tv show. Sorry about that!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This does not, however, make f&#*ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
Not sure I agree with this, CFs are investigated, yes? Look at the Tilman FF incident, or Abu Graib?
|
|
This does not, however, make f~&*ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
At a certain point, if you make the penalties for screwing up while attempting to do something good harsh enough, people won't bother trying to do something good anymore. They went in to rescue the hostages. I'm not sure how many hostages there were, but they rescued all but one of them. Yes, it's tragic that Ms. Norgrove was killed. But how much more tragic would it be if they had all be killed because it was decided that a rescue operation wasn't worth the potential bad PR ?
Not sure I agree with this, CFs are investigated, yes? Look at the Tilman FF incident, or Abu Graib?This does not, however, make f&#*ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
Indeed. Both of these incidents are ugly on a level that galls me personally. Yet what came out of them, really? Sure, a handful are dismissed or fall on their swords or whathaveyou, but was anyone fired, demoted, or given anything beyond the bare minimum in terms of punishment?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.
Freehold, I'd argue, for better or worse, those who have served at the sharp end, do have a wedge driven between those of us who haven't.
Anecdote alert!
My best friend, essentially my little brother in every way that matters, was US Army, and now is Ohio National Guard. Combat medic, two tours in Iraq. Father to 5 wonderful children.
He was in the initial invasion to liberate Iraq. His unit came up through what were (and now are again, suck it enviroweeneies!) the marshlands. Saddam had been drying up the marshes to starve out the Marsh Arabs.
Tim's never really talked about everything he saw over there, but he did talk about driving through the marshlands and seeing the starving Arabs. It's my understanding that they gave what supplies they could to the people, but they were a combat operation, not a relief one. When he was talking about the men, women, and children he saw, there was a sheer rage he kept barely controlled, that one man would choose to do this to an entire culture. I'd never, in the 20+ years I'd known him, heard that kind of rage in his voice.
I knew then, I could read about combat, I could talk to people who had been through it, but, to paraphrase River, "I could understand, I could't comprehend."
David Drake, who is a Vietnam Vet and a writer, helped me understand, in part with this essay in The Tank Lords.
So yeah, Freehold, there is a divide, I, hopefully you, and so many of us have never 'ridden with the Blackhorse'. And it's people like my little brother, and these soldiers who accidentally killed one hostage out of many, who help to ensure we don't have to.
At a certain point, if you make the penalties for screwing up while attempting to do something good harsh enough, people won't bother trying to do something good anymore. They went in to rescue the hostages. I'm not sure how many hostages there were, but they rescued all but one of them. Yes, it's tragic that Ms. Norgrove was killed. But how much more tragic would it be if they had all be killed because it was decided that a rescue operation wasn't worth the potential bad PR ?This does not, however, make f~&*ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
Agreed. However, I don't think we are even remotely close to that point yet.
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.Freehold, I'd argue, for better or worse, those who have served at the sharp end, do have a wedge driven between those of us who haven't.
Anecdote alert!
** spoiler omitted **I knew then, I could read about combat, I could talk to people who had been through it, but, to paraphrase River, "I could understand, I could't comprehend."
David Drake, who is a Vietnam Vet and a writer, helped me understand, in part with this essay in The Tank Lords.
So yeah, Freehold, there is a divide, I, hopefully you, and so many of us have never 'ridden with the Blackhorse'. And it's people like my little brother, and these soldiers who accidentally killed one hostage out of many, who help to ensure we don't have...
Matt, I hope your little brother comes back okay. His kids need a father, his wife, a husband, and you, a friend and brother. I pray for his safety.
However, the burgeoning divide worries me in ways I just can't put into words. When I see my one of my best friend's little brother go from annoying kid to moody teen to sharp as a tack maritime adult who loves his family but thinks them all idiots because they haven't been through the same things he have- and by now, simply due to dint of age, never will be- I'm worried. It's not just a military vs. civilian thing, though: I know there are issues within all branches of service regarding people who have seen combat and those who have not- sometimes it's a rivalry, other times it's less civil. I realize my words are as clear as mud on the topic(which we've loooooong since derailed), but I just can't put it into words.
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.
[EDIT]WHoops. Just realized I wasnt' being clear above. When I say ST-verse, I mean STARSHIP TROOPERS not Steven Tindall. I realized after I posted that you might have thought it a personal dig- it's not. I was actually referring to the world and philosophies that came out of the setting, written, movie and tv show. Sorry about that!
No problem Freehold, I do appreciate the clarification but for one brief shining momment the thought of little ol' me haveing my own universe was very nice to contemplate.
I can't say sorry for the "militeristic" leanings cause I really and truly do miss the navy and even though I'm makeing twice what I did when I was in I'd go back in in a heartbeat, yes even with ALL the BS that's associated it with it( believe me I remember the BS factor very well), it really was one of the best times of my life.
I fully understand that service is not for everyone, religious reasons or physical reasons are very good reasons. I just got more than a little rabid over the very broad assumption that the folks I served with as well as myself were all a bunch of slack-jawed gun toteing savages with no respect for the rule of law and a utter disdane for life.
I have been in mission breifings as an IT person and listend to those types of breifings and have never herad anything like "kill'em all" when hostages were involved. The whole point of a resuce mission IS the hostage. So I guess I got a little overly militant.
I have disagreed with you before on other posts and your not the kind to resort to personal attacks so I wouldn't have taken as such but thanks for the clarification anyway.
Now back to the lively discussion!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Heh, this topic needed to be derailed.
I do think part of the divide is a simple cultural one. I mean I can passably 'speak military' enough to understand some of the context, but war does change people. It's hard to worry about who's voted off DWtS this week or 'Snookie' when 6 months ago you were worrying about if that broken down car on the side of the road held a kid with an RPG* or was just going to blow up. We (meaning the US, if not the rest of the world) don't have a good system to help breach that divide. Assuming Malice instead of stupidity doesn't help either. ;-)
Tim doesn't think he's 'better' than me for his experience. But we are different now, just as you and I have cultural disconnects based on location and upbringing, despite both being 'Americans'.
<snob mode> I mean we (gamers) as a whole are more read and educated than our peers on modern events. We do get snookered by bad reporting still (c.f. the reporting of the 34 warships escorting the President, or the entire 'I can see Russia from my house' meme) but there is a disconnect at times. I have a plastic skull on my desk at work, and easily half my co-workers don't know why I named it Yorik.</snob mode>
Same goes for the military types. They know more about 'boots on the ground' than we do, having been there. It doesn't automatically make us/them better people.
Another Anecdote
His daughter then runs off to tell the boys, "Unca Matt is bringing Presents!" Tim turns to his wife and says "What? When did she learn to spell?"
When we brought the presents and they unwrapped them, Jake couldn't get his transformer to transform. He gave it to dad. Tim tried for maybe 10-15 minutes and finally said he couldn't either. So Jake gives it to me. 5 minutes later, he has his truck now as a robot. I said "Your dad can travel around the world keeping you safe, It's Unca Matt who can work Transformers. To 6 year old Jake, at that moment I was better than dad. :P
Same thing for the military folks, they may have a different skill set, that may be a lot more useful in situations (My goddaughter's 14 and will be dating before too long. Tim's proficiency in large and small caliber military weapons may be useful there) But it doesn't make them better. (guess who my entire extended family comes to for health insurance questions).
*That term alone says a lot about the different mindset. To me an RPG is something you need dice for. To military folks, it's something you don't want to see pointed at you.
Edit: I thought ST-Verse was 'Star Trek-verse' myself.
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.
[EDIT]WHoops. Just realized I wasnt' being clear above. When I say ST-verse, I mean STARSHIP TROOPERS not Steven Tindall. I realized after I posted that you might have thought it a personal dig- it's not. I was actually referring to the world and philosophies that came out of the setting, written, movie and tv show. Sorry about that!
No problem Freehold, I do appreciate the clarification but for one brief shining momment the thought of little ol' me haveing my own universe was very nice to contemplate.
I can't say sorry for the "militeristic" leanings cause I really and truly do miss the navy and even though I'm makeing twice what I did when I was in I'd go back in in a heartbeat, yes even with ALL the BS that's associated it with it( believe me I remember the BS factor very well), it really was one of the best times of my life.
I fully understand that service is not for everyone, religious reasons or physical reasons are very good reasons. I just got more than a little rabid over the very broad assumption that the folks I served with as well as myself were all a bunch of slack-jawed gun toteing savages with no respect for the rule of law and a utter disdane for life.
I have been in mission breifings as an IT person and listend to those types of breifings and have never herad anything like "kill'em all" when hostages were involved. The whole point of a resuce mission IS the hostage. So I guess I got a little overly militant.I have disagreed with you before on other posts and your not the kind to resort to personal attacks so I wouldn't have taken as such but thanks for the clarification anyway.
Now back to the lively discussion!
The thing is, I AGREE with you on that. I am happy to be a US citizen, and I expect nothing but the god damn f&*#ing best from my military to the point that I've been accused of being a perfectionist on the issue. It why things like this get to me, and I would prefer harsher punishments than more leniant ones.
As a side note, one of my friends(and perhaps my most respected political rival) who served laughingly said he'd NEVER want me anywhere NEAR his unit; another friend of mine who is into WH40K said the commissars and Imperial Guard were perfect for me- and he was right, damn him. HA!
|
|
This does not, however, make f#!~ups okay, which seems to be the prevailing attitude these days.Quoted for truth.
I'm calling it a c*~&-up because, in my life experience, c*~&-ups are much more frequent than conspiracies.
I don't think anyone has advocated that this shouldn't be investigated, and it is being investigated. If there was negligence or malice then this should deal with it.
|
|
The only problem I have with the early part of the statement is its militaristic leanings. For better or worse, we are not living in the ST-verse, so this attitude really isn't helpful and only serves to create a wedge between those who serve and those who don't.Freehold, I'd argue, for better or worse, those who have served at the sharp end, do have a wedge driven between those of us who haven't.
Anecdote alert!
** spoiler omitted **I knew then, I could read about combat, I could talk to people who had been through it, but, to paraphrase River, "I could understand, I could't comprehend."
David Drake, who is a Vietnam Vet and a writer, helped me understand, in part with this essay in The Tank Lords.
So yeah, Freehold, there is a divide, I, hopefully you, and so many of us have never 'ridden with the Blackhorse'. And it's people like my little brother, and these soldiers who accidentally killed one hostage out of many, who help to ensure we don't have...
Matt, I hope your little brother comes back okay. His kids need a father, his wife, a husband, and you, a friend and brother. I pray for his safety.
However, the burgeoning divide worries me in ways I just can't put into words. When I see my one of my best friend's little brother go from annoying kid to moody teen to sharp as a tack maritime adult who loves his family but thinks them all idiots because they haven't been through the same things he have- and by now, simply due to dint of age, never will be- I'm worried. It's not just a military vs. civilian thing, though: I know there are issues within all branches of service regarding people who have seen combat and those who have not- sometimes it's a rivalry, other times it's less civil. I realize my words are as clear as mud on the topic(which we've loooooong since derailed), but I just can't put it into words.
Yeah, and that's fair enough. But it doesn't invalidate all military operations. It isn't nice and we are shaped by out experiences. But we live in liberal democracies where the general populace doesn't have to go through this stuff. Your friend's kid brother volunteered (there being no draft at the moment in the US) fo his experiences. And it is people like him that protect people like us from the sort of stuff that impinges upon entire countries - Saddam's dictatorship, Afghanistan under the Taliban, North Korea under the Kims and so on.
Now, we can validly debate whether intervention has genuinely served any good - the jury is most definitely out of the wars started under George W Bush and the outcomes are still unclear. But from a defensive perspective the military is very necessary to ensure the world's freedom, or at least freedom in the democracies we live in. Not everyone can be persuaded through diplomacy.
The military used to be a guarantee for freedom. As it stands, the growing surveillance and security fanaticism, partyly driven by the military and its wars, are flushing privacy, freedom and democracy into the toilet.
Politicians want power. Every sort of freedom is a check on what powers politicians can have over their citizens, and so they seek any way to limit or destroy those freedoms. Starting a war is a brilliant way to do so, because you can always claim national security when asked about anything. A neverending war is even better. Consider what Bush called the war effort: "The Long War". The point is, there is no end date, nor will there ever be one, if the politicians in power can make that decision. It's far too convenient to them, to get rid of accountability.
The bad part about Abu Ghraib is not that it happened. It's that it was not freely admitted, which means similar disgusting things could be out there.
I think this thread has just about run its course. Locked.