| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eris" |
| Date: |
04 Jul 2005 12:49:06 AM |
| Object: |
O.T. Philosophical War Question |
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 01:53:25 AM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com...
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
This is not a question that cannot be adequately answered given the above.
The simple answer is the officer who called in the "strike" is responsible.
But suppose the coordinates were "off" somehow? (And it *does* happen.). The
responsibility for the civilian casualties may lie elsewhere. Anyway, any
officer who calls in a "strike" usually does so for a very good reason . A
"good" officer (and his men) will often endanger themselves to a higher
degree than you'd think just to avoid civilian casualties. It's the
soldierly thing to do.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:16:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:53:25 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com...
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
This is not a question that cannot be adequately answered given the above.
The simple answer is the officer who called in the "strike" is responsible.
But suppose the coordinates were "off" somehow? (And it *does* happen.). The
responsibility for the civilian casualties may lie elsewhere. Anyway, any
officer who calls in a "strike" usually does so for a very good reason . A
"good" officer (and his men) will often endanger themselves to a higher
degree than you'd think just to avoid civilian casualties. It's the
soldierly thing to do.
Greywolf
If you can assess the situation from the rear, you can determine where
the civilians are, but when you are ripping the buttons off of your
shirt to get lower, you can't determine anything, except that a very
large force is firing at you from 100-200m away. Lift your head to
look around and kiss it good bye.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 04:23:24 AM |
|
|
"Eris" <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com...
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
It was an accident.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hellbound Alleee" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:43:13 AM |
|
|
"Let's say you are in heavy combat. "
Unless the war was done for general self-defense, there is no
justification to be a soldier in any kind of combat. Therefore the
scenario is founded on a priori immorality.
The answer to the question is : the pilots and gunners are responsible
for the killings, but you sanctioned them by working for that military,
and you should feel just as guilty.
Hellbound Alleee
.................................................................
Listen to the Hellbound Alleee Show at http://www.hellboundalleee.com
.................................................................
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 04:05:24 AM |
|
|
"Let's say you are in heavy combat. "
Unless the war was done for general self-defense, there is no
justification to be a soldier in any kind of combat. Therefore the
scenario is founded on a priori immorality.
The answer to the question is : the pilots and gunners are responsible
for the killings, but you sanctioned them by working for that military,
and you should feel just as guilty.
Agreed.
War or 'organized killing' is the most horrifying venture humans ever came
up with, and should be avoided at all cost.
Religion and other virusses of the mind are the greater part of problems in
the world. Myth- (history and formation) and virusses-of-the-mind education
should be mandatory as to deconstruct literal theism to the ground.
However, every time Bush mentions God you just feel the hope leeking out of
you.
--
Niels
Atheist #2237
"The thing that saved me was Upanishads; Hinduism. Where you have
practically the same mythology [as Roman Catholicism], but it has been
intellectually interpreted. Say, already in the 9th century BC the Hindus
realized that all the deities are projections of psychological powers and
they are within you not out there [points away]."
-Joseph Campbell in The Hero's Journey
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 12:55:29 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:02:37 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes,
and gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put
civilians at risk.
Then you don't find the losses of 9/11 anything more than the enemy putting
civilians at risk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 01:06:10 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:1N0ye.38740$J12.6510@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes,
and gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put
civilians at risk.
Then you don't find the losses of 9/11 anything more than the enemy
putting civilians at risk.
The World Trade Center was not being used as a firebase.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 12:59:51 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<1120438533.672729337d501eed639e9320c0cc68bb@teranews>,
the lovely and talented Fred Stone
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
And for defending his country which he put on top of our
oil.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner ULC Atheist #1965 http://www.larseighner.com/
"No efficiency. No accountability. I tell you,
Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a universe." --Calvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 05:49:51 AM |
|
|
Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode,
<1120438533.672729337d501eed639e9320c0cc68bb@teranews>,
the lovely and talented Fred Stone
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
And for defending his country which he put on top of our
oil.
Now now, Lars. The hypothetical didn't say anything about Iraq.
However, the "defense of the country" response stands.
The hypothetical needs some more information. For example: Why is
there "heavy combat" going on? Where is it happening and for what
reason? Who is involved in the "heavy combat"?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 10:32:35 AM |
|
|
Le Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
That's so retarded, I'm speechless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:50:59 PM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2005.07.04.10.32.35.952434@127.0.0.1:
Le Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put
civilians at risk.
That's so retarded, I'm speechless.
We could only hope.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 10:58:47 AM |
|
|
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
It is called his "HOME".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 07:23:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:58:47 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
It is called his "HOME".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
Amen brother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 12:52:14 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:hm3hc1lj0qh3gqd1jr2l7ofk1act3ft66d@4ax.com:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes,
and gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put
civilians at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
The Geneva Conventions specify that when an enemy force uses one of
'those things' as a firebase it loses any protections.
You are correct about Rules of Engagement, but those may be changed
without liability if the enemy consistently involves specific buildings
in his operations.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
More proof that American GI's go to great lengths to prevent civilian
casualties. Thank you, Doug.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 01:50:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to get a
high body count. My only interest was in saving myself and my men.
This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking heavy losses of
men and material. Civilians were directly behind the attacking force.
I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless, no combat experience I was
the MFIC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:26:52 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to
get a high body count. My only interest was in saving myself and
my men. This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking
heavy losses of men and material. Civilians were directly behind
the attacking force. I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless,
no combat experience I was the MFIC.
In your case I would say that, although you /do/ bear
responsibility for the deaths of the civilians, you are far from
alone. Your captain bears /at least equal/ responsibility. And
ultimate responsibility I would place on LBJ, the man who abused
the trust you placed in as Commander in Chief. There're plenty
more who also bear responsibility, including the pilots who
answered your call.
That there is so much responsibility to go around should be
of only little comfort, I'm afraid. Responsibility shared is
responsibility multiplied, not divided.
I strongly suspect you are disturbed by the responsibility you
bear; I know /I/ would be. You might find comfort in finding some
way to do something to heal the wounds you caused so long
ago. This is an impossible task, to be sure, but that does not
make it less worthy. It also does not need to consume your whole
life. Indeed, if such consumption would bring detriment to those
around you who might depend upon you, that would be worng, as
well.
Only you can decide what wounds you might be able to treat, and
how you would do so. Should you join the other Vietnam vets who
have returned to Vietnam? Should you become active in your
local Vietnamese community? Should you tell the world what
happened? Should you strive to prevent another Vietnam from ever
happening again?
You /did/ help spread death and destruction, but new life can
spring from even the bloodiest of battlefields. It's not easy, but
nobody ever said it would be. War /is/ Hell, and you've now got
Hell to pay.
You cannot do it all, but I do not think you will be at peace
until you do /something./ And if you make the world a better place
while you're at it, then we'll /all/ have cause to thank you.
Sincerely,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 02:45:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:26:52 -0700, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
Eris wrote:
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to
get a high body count. My only interest was in saving myself and
my men. This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking
heavy losses of men and material. Civilians were directly behind
the attacking force. I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless,
no combat experience I was the MFIC.
In your case I would say that, although you /do/ bear
responsibility for the deaths of the civilians, you are far from
alone. Your captain bears /at least equal/ responsibility. And
ultimate responsibility I would place on LBJ, the man who abused
the trust you placed in as Commander in Chief. There're plenty
more who also bear responsibility, including the pilots who
answered your call.
That there is so much responsibility to go around should be
of only little comfort, I'm afraid. Responsibility shared is
responsibility multiplied, not divided.
I strongly suspect you are disturbed by the responsibility you
bear; I know /I/ would be. You might find comfort in finding some
way to do something to heal the wounds you caused so long
ago. This is an impossible task, to be sure, but that does not
make it less worthy. It also does not need to consume your whole
life. Indeed, if such consumption would bring detriment to those
around you who might depend upon you, that would be worng, as
well.
Only you can decide what wounds you might be able to treat, and
how you would do so. Should you join the other Vietnam vets who
have returned to Vietnam? Should you become active in your
local Vietnamese community? Should you tell the world what
happened? Should you strive to prevent another Vietnam from ever
happening again?
You /did/ help spread death and destruction, but new life can
spring from even the bloodiest of battlefields. It's not easy, but
nobody ever said it would be. War /is/ Hell, and you've now got
Hell to pay.
You cannot do it all, but I do not think you will be at peace
until you do /something./ And if you make the world a better place
while you're at it, then we'll /all/ have cause to thank you.
Sincerely,
b&
Thanks, I seek peace.
Nothing works, everything has been tried.
The VA is no help.
The only thing that comes close to healing is to talk about it.
I was a draftee, i.e. gunfodder in the eyes of the commanders.
The colonel had the gall to radio me that day and told me, I knew what
was out there, I knew what was going to happen to me, and he would
pray for my soul. I was so disassociated I just said roger over. I
wish I would have said that I would be waiting for him in hell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grogs" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 04:30:40 AM |
|
|
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:598hc15iadluvkek9tdrsfmm2eieuemuv3@4ax.com:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 19:26:52 -0700, Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>
wrote:
Eris wrote:
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to
get a high body count. My only interest was in saving myself and
my men. This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking
heavy losses of men and material. Civilians were directly behind
the attacking force. I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless,
no combat experience I was the MFIC.
In your case I would say that, although you /do/ bear
responsibility for the deaths of the civilians, you are far from
alone. Your captain bears /at least equal/ responsibility. And
ultimate responsibility I would place on LBJ, the man who abused
the trust you placed in as Commander in Chief. There're plenty
more who also bear responsibility, including the pilots who
answered your call.
That there is so much responsibility to go around should be
of only little comfort, I'm afraid. Responsibility shared is
responsibility multiplied, not divided.
I strongly suspect you are disturbed by the responsibility you
bear; I know /I/ would be. You might find comfort in finding some
way to do something to heal the wounds you caused so long
ago. This is an impossible task, to be sure, but that does not
make it less worthy. It also does not need to consume your whole
life. Indeed, if such consumption would bring detriment to those
around you who might depend upon you, that would be worng, as
well.
Only you can decide what wounds you might be able to treat, and
how you would do so. Should you join the other Vietnam vets who
have returned to Vietnam? Should you become active in your
local Vietnamese community? Should you tell the world what
happened? Should you strive to prevent another Vietnam from ever
happening again?
You /did/ help spread death and destruction, but new life can
spring from even the bloodiest of battlefields. It's not easy, but
nobody ever said it would be. War /is/ Hell, and you've now got
Hell to pay.
You cannot do it all, but I do not think you will be at peace
until you do /something./ And if you make the world a better place
while you're at it, then we'll /all/ have cause to thank you.
Sincerely,
b&
Thanks, I seek peace.
Nothing works, everything has been tried.
The VA is no help.
The only thing that comes close to healing is to talk about it.
I was a draftee, i.e. gunfodder in the eyes of the commanders.
The colonel had the gall to radio me that day and told me, I knew what
was out there, I knew what was going to happen to me, and he would
pray for my soul. I was so disassociated I just said roger over. I
wish I would have said that I would be waiting for him in hell.
It sounds like you're seeking absolution. If you haven't found it after
35+ years, I doubt anything I can say will do that.
The closest that I can come is to tell you that, given the situation you
describe, I would have done the same thing. While I've never been
involved in a shooting war, I was an officer leading troops in a place
where we very well could have been fired upon. Had I ever found myself
in a situation where I risked watching every man under my command die, I
would have taken whatever action was necessary to prevent it.
I'm way too young to have served in Vietnam. It was my father's war.
From what I know of it, you were put in a bad position from the start.
By the time you found yourself in that particular firefight, most of the
good choices had already been taken away from you by the higher-ups, from
LBJ down. Given just two choices, both of them crappy, I don't see how
you could have possibly been expected to let yourself and the men you
were fighting with die.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 03:25:45 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Thanks, I seek peace.
I guessed as much. And, for what it's worth...I don't envy you. I
/do/ admire you for refusing to succumb to your demons...but I
really, really don't envy you.
Nothing works, everything has been tried.
Oh, I'm sure there's /something/ left to try. No point in giving
up just yet, I should think.
The VA is no help.
Don't get me started on how furious I am with what's been done to
the VA. First, we demand the utmost from our best and brightest,
and then we toss them out li--ah, like I said. ``Don't get me
started.''
The only thing that comes close to healing is to talk about it.
Then speak! Tell everybody who will listen. Tell us, tell your
family and friends. Write a book (and don't be ashamed to get
help, such as from an English major at the local university, if
you're scared by that thought). Give talks at local community
centers. Especially tell draft-age kids...and tell as many
Vietnamese as you can find. They deserve to know why their kinsmen
died, if nothing else. Some might even be willing to grant you
forgivness.
And make damned sure you tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. Don't sugar-coat it, and don't make it
worse than it actually was. Lies /cause/ wars, they don't heal the
damage afterwards.
I was a draftee, i.e. gunfodder in the eyes of the commanders.
The colonel had the gall to radio me that day and told me, I
knew what was out there, I knew what was going to happen to me,
and he would pray for my soul. I was so disassociated I just
said roger over. I wish I would have said that I would be
waiting for him in hell.
And, you know what? You're both in Hell, right now--assuming he's
still alive. You know /your/ Hell all too well. Either his is much
the same, or he's in the /far/ worse Hell reserved for those who
lack compassion.
While you're telling everybody else your story, you might want to
look him up, and tell him, too. But I'd save that until you're
damned sure you can do it without malice.
Oh--and, I hate to break it to you, but you'll never fully
heal. These scars aren't going away; all you can do is build up
enough strength to work around them. Nobody ever said life was
fair, though. Life simply is, no more and no less.
Good luck.
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 08:52:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:50:00 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to get a
high body count.
Who told you to do that?
Could you be charged with a war crime for doing it?
My only interest was in saving myself and my men.
This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking heavy losses of
men and material. Civilians were directly behind the attacking force.
I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless, no combat experience I was
the MFIC.
Stolen Honor.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 07:22:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:52:20 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:50:00 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to get a
high body count.
Who told you to do that?
Could you be charged with a war crime for doing it?
Vietnam was all about body counts, it started with the President of
the US or Westmoreland and filter on down. There was no mystery about
the fact that our mission was to get a high body count. One general
was reprimanded for building a Holiday Inn in Vietnam and allowing the
patrols with the highest body count to stay there.
My only interest was in saving myself and my men.
This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking heavy losses of
men and material. Civilians were directly behind the attacking force.
I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless, no combat experience I was
the MFIC.
Stolen Honor.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 10:19:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:22:53 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:52:20 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:50:00 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to get a
high body count.
Who told you to do that?
Could you be charged with a war crime for doing it?
Vietnam was all about body counts, it started with the President of
the US or Westmoreland and filter on down. There was no mystery about
the fact that our mission was to get a high body count. One general
was reprimanded for building a Holiday Inn in Vietnam and allowing the
patrols with the highest body count to stay there.
Was it a general understanding or did some officers give direct orders
to go for body count, including civilians?
My only interest was in saving myself and my men.
This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking heavy losses of
men and material. Civilians were directly behind the attacking force.
I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless, no combat experience I was
the MFIC.
Stolen Honor.
Stolen Honor is a very good book that refutes the myths about Vietnam
combat soldiers in general being blood thirsty murderers.
It's also about the gullibility and dishonesty of the press when
reporting claims of atrocities made by people who said they were there
but in many cases were not and includes some who were never even in
the military.
There is no claim in the book that there were no atrocities but that
they were in fact exceptions rather than the rule.
The author also makes some eye opening comparisions between Vietnam
combat soldiers and WWII soldiers.
It's a page turner btw and difficult to put down.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
05 Jul 2005 07:13:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:19:50 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:22:53 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:52:20 GMT, "atheist@home" <atheist@home.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:50:00 -0400, Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
More "blame the victim" from our resident neo-con chickenhawk.
I was the FO, the ROE were never explained to me. I was told to get a
high body count.
Who told you to do that?
Could you be charged with a war crime for doing it?
Vietnam was all about body counts, it started with the President of
the US or Westmoreland and filter on down. There was no mystery about
the fact that our mission was to get a high body count. One general
was reprimanded for building a Holiday Inn in Vietnam and allowing the
patrols with the highest body count to stay there.
Was it a general understanding or did some officers give direct orders
to go for body count, including civilians?
Both, there was a lot of empahsis on body count. We were not supposed
to kill civilians, as we were supposed to be winning their hearts and
minds. We were not animals and went out of our way not to kill
civilians.
My only interest was in saving myself and my men.
This happened in 1968-1969, Mekong Delta, were taking heavy losses of
men and material. Civilians were directly behind the attacking force.
I was a SPC4, the captain was worthless, no combat experience I was
the MFIC.
Stolen Honor.
Stolen Honor is a very good book that refutes the myths about Vietnam
combat soldiers in general being blood thirsty murderers.
It's also about the gullibility and dishonesty of the press when
reporting claims of atrocities made by people who said they were there
but in many cases were not and includes some who were never even in
the military.
There is no claim in the book that there were no atrocities but that
they were in fact exceptions rather than the rule.
The author also makes some eye opening comparisions between Vietnam
combat soldiers and WWII soldiers.
It's a page turner btw and difficult to put down.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 10:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:24:54 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:55:29 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
news:gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
The enemy is responsible for fighting from an area where he put civilians
at risk.
*****. Since you are drawing from your vast lack of military
service, let me explain something I learned at 18 in Ranger School.
It is the responsibility of the FO to determine the exact nature of
the target. That includes wether or not there are noncombatants in
your target area. If the ROE forbids targeting specific groups or
buildings (hospitals, schools, houses of worship, refugees, etc.) and
you call in a strike that has one of those things in the target area,
*you* are responsible, and can be charged with a war crime.
During the failed raid on Adid's headquarters in the Mog, one of the
biggest problems we had was the mobs of women and children mixed in
with the shooters. Made returning fire a stone cold *****. During the
Mogadishu Mile, many Rangers were more than tempted to open up on the
crowd in hopes of picking off the snipers. But we didn't.
Damn!
My hat is definitely off to you.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 12:58:48 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air
strikes, and gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and
gunners?
What makes you think it's an either / or proposition? And why do
you leave blameless the officer who gave you the order to call in
the strike, the general who sent your squadron to that location,
or the politician who voted for the war in the first place?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 01:01:58 AM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
You are. You initiated the strike that resulted in the deaths. The
others also are responsible, to a lesser degree.
James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 07:35:14 AM |
|
|
In article <gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com>,
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
It depends on many factors.
Did you know that civilians were there, or did you believe that there
were just enemy forces?
If there were civilians there:
Did you try to spare them by breaking off the engagement or some other
tactic to put them out of harm's way?
Could you have warned the civilians that they were in danger?
Did you try to pinpoint the civilians' and the enemy's coordinates as
precisely as possible so the pilots would know where to strike?
Did you warn the helicopters or planes that there might be civilians
there?
If you gave the right information, did the gunners and pilots act
accordingly?
There are many other possibilities, but the bottom line is that if you
did all that you could to protect the civilians while saving your troops
and your own lives, then you are not responsible. If the pilots acted
properly on the information given them , then they are also not to blame.
Civilian casualties are the sad by product of all wars. Sometimes they
are unavoidable. That's another reason why war sucks.
However, in an unjust war, while the soldiers may be not to blame for
the loss of innocent civilian lives, the blame rests on the shoulders of
the leader(s) who started the war.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. Philosophical War Question |
04 Jul 2005 07:31:17 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:35:14 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <gl1hc197jgp7ions50nbbm2pn2i9cukc2g@4ax.com>,
Eris <vithant@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
Let's say you are in heavy combat.
You are the radio operator and you call in Artillery, air strikes, and
gun ships.
200 hundred people are killed as a result of your their actions.
Civilians are part of the people who are killed.
Are you responsible for the deaths or are the pilots and gunners?
It depends on many factors.
Did you know that civilians were there, or did you believe that there
were just enemy forces?
If there were civilians there:
Did you try to spare them by breaking off the engagement or some other
tactic to put them out of harm's way?
Could you have warned the civilians that they were in danger?
Did you try to pinpoint the civilians' and the enemy's coordinates as
precisely as possible so the pilots would know where to strike?
Did you warn the helicopters or planes that there might be civilians
there?
If you gave the right information, did the gunners and pilots act
accordingly?
There are many other possibilities, but the bottom line is that if you
did all that you could to protect the civilians while saving your troops
and your own lives, then you are not responsible. If the pilots acted
properly on the information given them , then they are also not to blame.
Civilian casualties are the sad by product of all wars. Sometimes they
are unavoidable. That's another reason why war sucks.
However, in an unjust war, while the soldiers may be not to blame for
the loss of innocent civilian lives, the blame rests on the shoulders of
the leader(s) who started the war.
We hopped off of the Helicopters at about 0600hrs, over 200 of us, by
1200 hrs there were about thirty of us alive. We were told it was a
PZ, but in reality it was the hottest LZ I had experienced. With all
of the bullets coming at me when I raised my antenna, I was completely
disassociated and working by rote. I knew there was a village on the
other side of the wood line, but didn't know if any civilians were
there or had been evacuated , until the after action report.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
