Ethics Training For Murderers
 

(CBS/AP) In the wake of the Haditha investigation, the U.S. general commanding coalition forces in Iraq on Thursday ordered his military commanders to conduct core values training on moral and ethical standards on the battlefield.

If this stuff weren't real, it would be a tragic comedy. What one thing about this war was "ethical" in the first place?

"Do as I say, not as I do"? :right:

Way of the world......every time a Boeing big shot making millions fucks up, I have to go to hours of mandatory ethics training. :mad:

Well so do the big executives. Fortunately for them, there's booze and hookers at theirs.:p

Training
 

I had to take some very important IT Security Awareness Training over the internet. Once I put in all my top-secret identity info and passwords, I clicked on the "Proceed to Training" button. A little pop-up message then appeared and declared: "You are about to be sent to a non-secure site. Do you want to proceed?"

What the *&^%!

I'm torn on this. On one hand there is no excuse for this, our soldiers are trained professionals, we do not stoop to the level of the pathetic sadistic meatbags we're fighting over there. But on the other hand after hearing report after report about Iraqi civilans either attacking crews of downed helicopters or calling in armed insurgents to kill them I'm finding my sympathy drying up very quickly.

Goes right back to the same problem. Either we install sufficient troops to solve this problem, OR we get out. We have too few boots in country - as commander after commander has said. We don't provide security. We all but encourage civil war. We still have not disposed of massive munition dumps because we don't have enough troops. Now we shoot at anyone because we created an insurgency - fired the military and police in direct violation of basic military doctrine. Almost all reconstruction projects have halted or have been sabotaged.

So after only making things worse - not even doing any post war reconstruction for seven months, permitting looting, and lying about Mission Accomplished - now we must either fix the problem or get out. No way around basic facts. Either we put enough boots in country to fix a problem we created, or we get out - let the Iraqis decide that maybe they must take responsibility.

It is irresponsible to blame all Iraqis for the actions of a few. But then that same 'they are all alike' mentality got us into this mess.

We had six to 12 months to improve things. We did nothing because a mental midget said Americans don’t do nation building. So now a status quo – 150,000 troops – too few boots – will somehow repair damage created by a mental midget leader? Get real. What is happening in Iraq has been well proven in history. Is it their fault that a president listened to political rhetoric rather than voices of informed non-political types? If I was in Iraq in their position, then I to would probably be doing the same thing. Life in Iraq has never been worse. Less people died under Saddam. Saddam also provided electricity, water, and sewers. About 1000 Iraqis are now killed every month in civil war. At least hundreds are kidnapped. And then Americans go around shooting 50 cal bullets everywhere. You would blame Iraqis for creating this situation? Get real.

Why will Sensitivity Training solve a problem where virtually every Iraqi is now a potential threat? Good morning Vietnam - deja vue. Or do you forget those lessons from history? Either we get in or we get out. The status quo is a guarantee of failure. Sensitivity training will not solve this problem.

To the best of my knowledge, Al Qaeda does not recruit 5-year-olds.

If the cops came into your neighborhood after hearing rumors that civilians were supporting gangs and starting randomly shooting your neighbors, you would probably be upset.

One excuse for invading Iraq was Husseins brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians. His defense is that if he were not brutal they would become terrorists, which is sort of what you are saying.

Maybe the women in that house knew about that bomb and maybe they didn't. Since they were all executed, we'll never know. If we really want to start taking pages from the Nazi handbook on how to clamp down on insurgencies and control unruly populations, then someone had better let me know first.

Shooting unarmed women and children is wrong. What amazes me is that conservatives who rail at liberals for any kind of 'moral equivalency' are suddenly becoming very understanding. They are taking an almost liberal attitude in defense of the Marines. I'm almost expecting the 'he had a troubled childhood' defense.

I don't mean to single you out, Engineer, but I wouldn't be surprised if your attitude has already started to be shaped by 'talking points'.

Right now we are looking into the face of hell in Iraq and hell is starting to look back at us. I predict that 2-3 years after troops return home we will start to hear about cuts in veterans services, especially mental health services. Trying to reacclimate hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have been fighting this kind of war is going to be brutal.

Well, it does cut down on the number of widows and orphans. :redface:

The training is not secret, only who to charge for your training.;)

I fully agree that shooting civilians is completely indefensible, please don't get me wrong. This war has taught me something you won't hear many places, democracy cannot unite people. Democracy is the eventual creation of a people already united by common morals and above all else the understanding that life is sacred. I do not see this in these people. They still in the feudal warlord stage of their civilization and no amount of effort on our part is going to pull them past it faster. Regardless of whether we want them to live in a society that values life, peace, and freedom if they do not want it we cannot give it to them. And nothing I've seen leads me to believe they really want this.

This George Jr administration intended to *fix* the world by imposing democracy. Democracy must be earned - as Lebanon demonstrates only after how many dead in a civil war. Democracies not tempered by pain (by other bad forms of government) just do not survive. Democracy is only appreciated when it is earned.

Meanwhile, we have put best Americans in an impossible situation. And like in Vietnam, soldiers will commit crimes when put into these impossible situations. In Afghanistan, we had six to twelve months to upgrade a country. We did nothing. We did not even fix the water system in Kabul as promised. So again, democracy has no chance. We foolishly thought a country would fix itself without any planning. As demonstrated in WWII, Churchill and Roosevelt were planning for peace even before the US had yet fought a major battle. Planning for peace - which is THE purpose of war - must start that early. Notice what is 'purpose of war'.

Our current leaders have so much political knowledge without a grasp of history. Therefore American troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan are now in impossible, 'no win' situations. Just like in Vietnam, it is a situation only ripe for massacres and other atrocities. There is no strategic objective in either country. Therefore no victory is possible and no exit strategy exists. A situation that can only be solved by a massive troop deployment (500,000 men) or solved by getting out. The status quo means both countries will get worse.

Initial report suggest a massacre in Ishaqi did not happen. Rumsfeld has declared that US troops are not trained to massacre. So what does that mean? It means he is in denial. It means he believes the status quo, no strategic objective, no exit strategy, and number of troops is all sufficient. IOW an impossible situation will remain.

Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't think that you were completely defending the situation, but I wasn't sure. I've never been in the military, which means I have obviously not been in combat. The not being in combat is something I share with my President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense. There is nothing unusual about this. In fact, our founding fathers would probably approve of having men who have always been civilians in ultimate charge of the military.

However, I do have some measure of empathy and I have spoken and associated with people in the military, as well as reading on the subject. People say that noone who has been in combat, especially in urban settings fighting an insurgency, can understand the stress. Actually, I think that to some degree I can. Like you I think I can understand the motivation, the stress, and the rage.

I just think that it doesn't make any difference. In regular law, when a person is committing an illegal act, they are completely responsible for their actions. If a drug dealer, for example, in self defense shoots back at another drug dealer and kills a 9-year-old girl, he does not have a defense. If a person robbing a bank shoots and kills a customer because he perceived some threat, he has no defense. I am sure that when these kinds of people go before a judge they may attempt to rationalize their decision, blame it on circumstances or the victim, but it probably does them no good.

As I said in my post, this incident has some conservatives acting like the kind of liberals that conservatives love to hate. The kind of liberals that defend the criminal by attacking the victim, or by stretching extenuating circumstances to the breaking point in an effort to allow the defendant to shuck off responsiblity.

I was never that kind of liberal. Like you, I can possibly glimpse the reasoning of these people, but I also recognize responsibility for ones actions.

Of course we are partially responsible for this in some way. We allowed our elected officials to give our President the authority to start a war. And he was the kind of person who invisioned a clean decisive war, one in which there would be no insurgency, a short occupation, and a grateful nation that would completely take on the burden of it's reconstruction - you know, a moron.

Simple, Pangloss, though it doubtless flies directly in the face of your belief set, which your remark suggests is an anti-democracy one -- is it? -- it is inherently right to depose dictatorship and replace it with a social order that is more free: a democracy. Examine Augustine of Hippo's writings on just wars for support of this idea dating back to the fourth century AD (and where's your thinking been on this, young man?). Democracy is not unique to the West, even though the West was the place it first flourished. Nor is it antithetical to Islam. Who opposes democracy in Islamic lands? Fascistic donkey dicks who think about as well as tertiary-syphilis cases, and believe their lives will go to smash once deprived of the privilege they've grown accustomed to. Trouble is, allocating privilege destroys economies, and impedes the economies it doesn't destroy. These people are so consumed in fighting like dogs for power and privilege that they never consider that as one door closes, another opens: economic liberty and political liberty are a rising tide, which lifts every boat, even ones that are rather leaky.

Rich, post #13 is one of the better posts I've seen out of you. I hope you'll do more.