Haditha

[Barb]

The events of Nov. 21, 2005 are the main articles in both Time and Newsweek magazines. The exact details remain somewhat cloudy, but what is known is that 24 Iraqis, almost all of whom were unarmed, died during a five-hour encounter with a Marine Corps patrol.

The comparisons to My Lai are beginning to come out, although the Vietnam massacre had a much higher body count. Bush's ratings are already down with the war entering its 40th month, but is this the turning point where the average American citizen loses respect for the military?

Discuss.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

This has already been blown over. The military's said it WASN'T soldiers going psycho. Fact is, this isn't the first time, and it won't be last.

But I love that it's getting harder and harder to NOT compare this to Vietnam.

 

[Barb]

The biggest problem may be the public's reaction. The soldiers may have been acting in accord with their training but, still, shooting unarmed people doesn't look good. Add Abu Ghraib to Haditha and you have a public relations nightmare (not to mention violations of the Geneva Convention). The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are certainly there.

 

[evkl]

I'd be happier if a few soldiers lost their head due to combat stress and killed them, as opposed to soldiers in their right mind slaughtering civillians.

If somebody's truly deranged by terrible combat experiences--how much of that is their fault? Paranoia and panic can set in quite easily, and that could lead to an immense tragedy which isn't...entirely the soldier's fault, as they're not sane. But somebody who knowingly commits a massacre, that's certainly wrong.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

It's not really the soldier's fault. But it's one of those "who CAN we blame?" situations. You CERTAINLY can't blame the innocent civilians. You can't FULLY blame the government, because they can't possibly know the psychological conditions of every soldier there. You can KIND OF blame the squad leader, since he IS in charge, and he should be more capable of handling stress than the rest, and should be able to wrangle them in when needed. But everyone has their breaking point.

Abu Ghraib was certainly inexcusable, but this is different. Certainly, if something on this scale is happening more often, SOMETHING drastic has to be done, but right now, not much can be done, unless more of these situations are brought to light. And...they probably will. But the fun part of this war is figuring it where, exactly...the shit hit the fan. Because we're certainly past that point.

 

[Mozz]

I disagree.

/quickly QUICKLY withdraws from thread.

 

[The Big Al]

This is why we have military court martials. Let the courts decide whether or not it was combat stress (which is running rampant) or they were in their right mind. The fact this went on for five hours is a strike against the combat stress. It says they were hunted down. And the incident in which soldiers killed a man and planted evidence cannot be justified by any means.

Not mention if the soldiers had to answer for their crimes, it could smooth out attitudes back home.

 

[ChaosRocket]

I disagree.

/quickly QUICKLY withdraws from thread.

I highly doubt there's anything the military could do that you *would* be against. Even if you say you're against something, as soon as the military does it you change your opinion to say that it's OK what the military did. So your opinion on these topics is really kinda worthless.

 

[Mozz]

I highly doubt there's anything the military could do that you *would* be against. Even if you say you're against something, as soon as the military does it you change your opinion to say that it's OK what the military did. So your opinion on these topics is really kinda worthless.

Fantastic.