Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (151901)	11/18/2004 12:57:59 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 281500

blah, blah, blah

To: michael97123 who wrote (151901)	11/18/2004 2:58:47 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

MIke, re: So after thinking about what i saw, i realized that in the same circumstance i would have done the same thing and I suspect the anti-warriors on the thread would be doing that as well. Mike Here's a post I wrote on another thread regarding the soldier that shot the injured Iraqi. It's a little different take on it than you and Jlallen have. Do you think you could, this one time, actually mirror image the video and imagine how you'd feel if it had been one of ours that took the bullet in the head under the same circumstances? I'd like to know how you'd have felt. Here's the post: <<"Dabum, re: The last thing they need is someone questioning whether a kill is a good kill or a bad kill. Dabum, I've seen the video on that killing and I feel really, really bad for the soldier that fired the round. In many ways it seems unfair to put people in situations that many, maybe most, of us would be unable to handle properly, and then to place blame on them for their human failings. I feel that way regardless of whether he knew the guy was unarmed, seriously wounded and was no threat. I say that because the fighting they've been doing is the kind of combat fighting that builds fear, anger and the drive to kill until many cannot control the on-off button in their decisions to kill those who pose, or have posed, a threat. And that's the end of my agreement with your series of posts on this issue because clearly it was a "bad kill." For just one instant, imagine that the situation was reversed and that it was your son's squad that had been left there wounded and then the insurgents returned. Given that mirror image, if you saw that same piece of video, heard those same words and watched the killing, would you then be saying that there was a question of whether it was a "good kill or a bad kill?" Hell no. You'd be so outraged and angry that you'd want to pick up a gun yourself and kill a bunch of the "killers." And if anyone made the arguments you're making you'd think they were completely brainwashed by "our team" thinking. Justice and morality with respect to a moment in time such as that don't change depending on whether the actor is on your side or the other side. It is what it is. Should we see such film? What's wrong with the press showing the war, warts and all? If America can't handle the reality of the war then maybe this democracy simply isn't ready to support a war based on the cost/benefits that justify this war? Shouldn't the public know and isn't an informed population the cornerstone of an effective and efficient democracy? Or maybe you like a different form of governance where decisions are made by shadowy men based on secret information and the public is deliberately kept in the dark? My position is, therefor that the soldier in question is probably not one who should be making the kinds of decisions that he made when he pulled the trigger. There were many ways to handle any possible "threat" from the wounded guy that did not involve executing him. It takes some courage to do the right thing in those circumstance and if you don't have it, you shouldn't be there with your finger on the trigger. I would give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to murder, I would write it off as a human failing, but I wouldn't have him in that situation again. I'd also want to know who was in charge and why he didn't take control when the soldiers went in. But I wouldn't censor the press. Once you begin to travel down that road it opens up a huge hole where people cover mistakes, bad decisions, criminal activities and corruption. The upshot is that things will be done in our name, with our approval and for which we bear ultimate responsibility, but which we would never have condoned if the truth were known. I think that's happening in Iraq. More censorship would encourage more, not less, screwups.">>