Perhaps errata was referring to this quote:
I was disturbed by this as well, though it’s not specific enough to prove anything.
Chaos…
I have to agree. If it weren’t terrible, what would be so bad about being fond of it? You could even reverse it and say
“It is good that the superbowl is not terrible; else some would lose their fondness for it”
Booka,
I am afraid your view of that, though accurate, is not widely held among the masses. I have to say that I agree, though personally, I don’t know if this particular war is the greatest thing since sliced dog. If however, the results look good for us in the future, than yes, it was a good bet. Why? Well, when was the last time the US won a major conflict and didn’t “share the wealth”, so to speak, anyway?
I wish more people could understand that the sort of nationalism & shameless partisanship that typically makes up the oppostion to US interests ultimately hurts their own causes as much if not more than ours…
I didn’t see it so much as an “eagerness to get their first kill” so much as a “desire to get it over with, since they know it’ll have to be done eventually”.
Just my take, however.
No, this is.
I have a question - was the boy trying to pick up the grenade itself (the ammo), or was he trying to pick up a launcher which was loaded with a grenade (weapon plus ammo)? If it was the former, I can’t see how the kid would pose a threat, as the grenades are usless without a launcher. It would be like trying to throw a bullet reather than firing it from a gun.
If it was the latter, was the kid just reaching for the launcher, or did he actually pick it up and point it at the soldiers? Unless the kid was actually aiming at them with a clear intent to fire, I don’t think think this could justifiably be called self-defense…
jonpluc, you say you’re in full support of this war. Well, this is what happens in war.
The soldiers are just doing their job.
Personally, articles such as this one just reinforce my belief that war is tragic and should be avoided. That’s all.
Personally, incidents such as this just reinforce my belief that American forces are increasingly following a policy of “shoot first - recite formulaic expresions of regret later”.
That’s not a personal dig at you, pennylane, I just don’t believe that this war is just, so I have a hard time accepting that civilian casualties are an unavoidable part of this conflict. We had no right being there in the first place, and there was no reason that kid had to die.
As an aside, I found a further article from reuters which gives a clearer picture of the soldier’s attitude…
US TROOPS FACE CHILDREN, AND HARD CALLS, IN BATTLE
Kieran Murray, Reuters, 4/8/03
KERBALA, Iraq - When a young Iraqi boy stooped to pick up a
rocket-propelled grenade off the body of a dead paramilitary, U.S. Army
Pvt. Nick Boggs made a tough call.
He unloaded machine-gun fire and the boy, whom he puts at about 10 years
old, fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of wasteland.
Boggs, a soft-spoken, 21-year-old former hunting guide from Alaska, says he
knew when he joined the army 18 months ago he might have to make a decision
like that someday…
“I did what I had to do. I don’t have a big problem with it, but anyone who
shoots a little kid has to feel something,” he said after fierce weekend
fighting in this Shi’ite Muslim holy city that left dozens of Iraqis and
one American soldier dead.
As U.S. troops take the Iraq war out of the desert and into the main
cities, they are increasingly seeing children in their line of fire.
Many are innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time and
military officers concede that some have may have been killed in artillery
or mortar fire, or shot down by soldiers whose judgment is impaired in the
“fog of war…”
“I think they thought we wouldn’t shoot kids. But we showed them we don’t
care. We are going to do what we have to do to stay alive and keep
ourselves safe.”
The boy he killed was with another child of around the same age when they
reached for the rocket-propelled grenade and came under fire. Boggs thinks
the second boy was also hit but other soldiers think he escaped and that he
dragged his friend’s dead body away…
In short, I don’t think our troops are actually trigger-happy, but I think they’re getting damn close. It seems that if anything or anyone gets in the way of their goals, be they civilians, children, or journalists, well then it’s just too bad, isn’t it?
“Them’s just the harsh realities of war”, they say. “Collateral Damage” - “very regrettable, but unavaoidable”, etc, etc. These are the words we hear every time some shit like this happens, and we’re just supposed to shrug our shoulders and accept it.
Well I’m sorry, but when I see pictures of a two-year old writhing in agony on a filthy hospital bed, burnt from chin to toes by one of our “precision-guided” bombs, I do NOT accept it. It’s utterly obscene, and it is too high a price to pay for this disgusting sham of a war.
Yes, I know that there is no way to totally avoid civian casualties in a full-scale war, but that simply means the military and the politicians knew these types of deaths would occur, but were willing to invade anyway…
Please accept my apologies if this comes across as a rant, but that’s my opinion and I stand by it
- From Boggs
Says it all
In my opinion, Bibliovore, civilian casualties are an unavoidable part of war, especially a conflict of this kind which involves military invasion of urban areas, and that’s why we all should have thought more seriously about this war before it began. I have total confidence that American and British troops are doing all they can to avoid civilian casualties - both out of human decency and to avoid negative publicity - and the fact that there has been so much “collateral damage” just underlines the fact that no matter how humane the soldiers, no matter how precise the weapons, tragic loss of life is inevitable. It may or may not be too high a price for the Iraqis to pay for their freedom but that was not our decision to make, in my opinion.
Oh, then he’s talking about the unsubstantiated comment the reporter tossed in there as though it’s a fact. I dismiss that absent any evidence. You will notice in the article that the reporter did not provide evidence. There was one individual who said he felt that way at one time.
Sam Stone, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly.
And a good thing too.
I worry that the human suffering has become somehow devalued; that we now talk of these as “bloodless” wars (only 79 coalition casualties so far!) and lose sight of the very real cost that this freedom costs. I have no problem knowing that this destruction took place in my name, but we should acknowledge the “horror of war” and the effort, patriotism and dedication of the armed forces for going there, putting their lives on the line, and (judging by the latest news feed) really doing rather well! It is patriotic to put your life on the line for your country (much more so than covering your truck with flags and decals, or singing silly songs on the radio) and it shouldn’t be glossed over.
That’s my only point. If it seems rather silly and minor; well, so be it. I guess I’m just looking for some honesty in a politician; an acknowledgement of the reality of what it means to have to make decisions that cause the death and destruction of hundreds or thousands, including some of the very people that you were elected to help. Not because this is necessarily a bad thing (I’m sure much of the Iraqi population is quite pleased with us right now) but because it is in a very real sense the ultimate decision that a president makes on our behalf. And we the people, being the government in our own way, should be shown what has been done in our name.
Probably highly inappropriate, but this story made me think of a South Park quote: “It’s coming right for us!”
Question for people who called the soldier trigger-happy. How many times have you, alone in the dark with your PS2, been surprised by something, jerked, and knocked over the coffee table? Is it just me?
Sure, soldiers are trained - but you can weigh that against the fact that you are in your own cozy home pretending.
I don’t mean to continue a hijack but I am absolutely confused by some people’s reactions here. I’m sorry if an infantryman’s point of view does not jive with your compassionate, enlightened, holistic, mother-earthy, world-view that no one should ever inflict harm upon another but let’s review some facts quickly.
1.) An infantryman’s job is to point his weapon down-range and engage and kill the enemy.
2.) Any other duties of an infantryman are secondary to # 1.
3.) Any other position, within the U.S. military, is in support of that infantryman’s job to point his weapon down-range and engage and kill the enemy.
It is, quite simply, that simple. Our entire military exists around this premise - combat positions (kill the enemy) and support positions (get the material, equipment, and paperwork done to support killing the enemy).
To find it ‘shocking’ that a member of the Infantry would consider getting a kill in a combat situation a goal is just being very, very naive. Although never wishing for war, it is the very thing that their existence, training, and focus is based upon.
It’s not a social club kids.
Mean “11B” Joe
Gee, Joe; what we were talking about is the idea that some Soldiers might be having fantasies about how cool it would be to get to kill someone.
After seeing that it was a rocket propelled grenade, I have to say that the shooting was totally unjustified. if the kid could not have harmed anybody by throwing that grenade. What was the urgency to shoot him?
A RPG launches a rocket with a relatively powerful explosive warhead…they can incapacitate a tank if they hit it right, totally destroy most smaller vehicles, kill a room full of people, or shoot down a helicopter (if it’s close). You don’t throw it, you aim and fire. A 10 year old kid probably could use one effectively if he knew how - during the attack on Berlin near the end of WWII Germans in their early-teens took out a lot of Russians using a more primitive but essentially the same weapon.
Here’s some information about what the kid was likely going for…
Only 15 pounds loaded, a 10 year old could definitely shoulder and aim one. Effective range against a motionless target of 500 yards, one lucky shot and the soldier could have been dead himself.
He wasn’t going for a launcher he grabbed a grenade. And give me a break, like a ten yera old Iraqi kid would really know how to load and fire a rocket launcher? GMAFB. :rolleyes:
I don’t think the soldier should have been cleared to talk to the media. [paraphrase]‘They didn’t think we would shoot children… we sure showed them’[/paraphrase] is not a great quote, no matter how justified the situation.