If this doesnt blow your mind your not human. US soilder killing a 10 yr old in self

Great Debates
81

Too bad. No one said life was fair. Nevertheless, he made a stupid decision and he had to live (briefly) and die with it. He was threatening US servicemen, directly or indirectly.

Given that the enemy was picking up a weapon with the obvious purpose of furthering its use against some other soldier, I don’t really give a damn.

Part of the reason that we have had such low casualties is that we are not merciful to our enemies. You strike at the US, and you die, swiftly. We don’t let them regroup, and we don’t let them reequip. Its a constant barrage and attack.

Actually, those of you saying the soldier did something bad sicken me. To die sucks. To be forced to kill sucks. He was, however, protecting his comrades and brothers in the armed forces against an enemy.

82

Joe: You are seriously mistaken in your appraisal of my posting. The rest of your posting after that actually goes to show that you, somehow, think it’s a good thing that someone gets to go kill someone, “to validate their training,” thus reinforcing my actual point.

83

No it does not show that I think it is a good thing. As a matter of fact I have been decidedly un-opinioned in my posts on the moral relevance of that training and purpose. Again, you read much more than is stated to support your (IMHO) incorrect view of the infantry. How about you pointing out exactly what I said that states I think it is a ‘good’ thing?

No offense Monty, but how about answering my original response to your post to me? This 2nd response is more of the same. Again, please show me where in the article it stated they were having “fantasies” about how “cool” it would be to get to kill someone?

You can’t so you’ll add more supposition about what you think my comments mean instead of what they actually say.

As for being serously mistaken in my appraisal, please do feel free to expand upon your original premise. (Perhaps another thread to end this hijack?) If I have made assumptions about your position that are incorrect please explain.

I am not, however, interested in a debate about the value of ‘war’ nor this action in relation to Iraq. It is just a pet-peeve of mine in regards to the military and specifically the PBI (poor bloody infantry) that prompted my remarks to draw attention to what I feel is a common misconception amongst those giving criticsm to actions taken in conflict.

84

Unlike you, Joe, I’m using the English words in the way the English language uses them. You will notice (if you pay attention this time) that I did not say that anyone actually used those terms. I said that’s what we’re talking about. Your use of the term “validate” in regards to the Infantry’s training certainly does indicate that you, as I said, somehow think it’s a good thing. Or perhaps you’ve got an alternative definition in the MeanJoe Dictionary of the English language. Do share.

And I’m military myself, so don’t raise any red herrings on that score.

85

RPG can refer to either the launcher as a whole, or the individual rounds, but it is most commonly a reference to the launcher (Ammunition is usually refered to as RPG rounds or the like). Further, the article refered to the kid taking a weapon, not ammunition. A RPG round is ammunition, not a weapon, since it is unusable without a launcher (Well, I dunno if they can use it SPR style, but I kinda doubt it).

Sounds like it was the full unit, to me.

SenorBeef, you’re wrong about the RPG being a one-shot deal. The RPG-7 (The most commonly-used one) is a reloadable system, IIRC. When you fire the round, you slide another one in the front, and it’s ready to fire. Most soldiers who carry RPGs will have several rounds for them. In many russian-equipment armies, the RPG-7 is one soldier’s primary weapon, just as some soldiers are equiped with a machinegun instead of a rifle as their primary weapon.

Some newer RPGs, much like the US anti-tank weapons, are single-shot disposable types because they are smaller and lighter, spreading the anti-tank ability through the rest of the squad/fire-team.

Now, a more general reply…

In general, I’ve been against this war from the begining, due to various factors. I particularly dislike civilian casualties. However, that kid was taking a high-explosive rocket launcher. It is a very dangerous weapon in urban fighting. It is a threat, wether the kid is going to use it, or if he’s taking it back to another soldier to use. Either way, he is participating in combat. Obviously, it’s regretable that a kid was killed. If he had been 18, or 30, or 50, or 80, we would have never heard about it. But regardless of the age, it’s still a threat to the troops. If the article is accurate, then the soldier was completely justified in what he did.

86

I suppose a discussion of children at war in Iraq could use a reference to Saddam’s Lion Cubs.

Diogenes may think that it may be ridiculous to believe that young children could fire a simple RPG (aim and pull the trigger, essentially), but Saddam trained a LOT of children to fight.

[qupte]
American troops threatened by chemical weapons and suicide bombings face another danger when they reach Baghdad - Saddam Hussein’s army of children.
Well-trained, ferocious and 8,000-strong, the Ashbal Saddam - Saddam’s Lion Cubs - are waiting in the capital for U.S. forces to arrive, said Peter Singer, a fellow with Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
…
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam’s security police began forcing boys as young as 6 from their families and into intensive boot camps. There, they are beaten, forced to kill animals and indoctrinated with Baath Party propaganda.

They emerge about age 10 schooled in the use of small arms and basic infantry tactics, clad in black trousers and shirts bearing the inscription “Ashbal Saddam,” said the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights.

U.S. soldiers have battled children before, in Vietnam, Somalia and Afghanistan, where the first American killed in action died from shots fired by a 14-year-old boy.

[/quote]

This is the nature of the enemy. Perhaps some on the anti-war side held their opinions because they just don’t realize how incredibly depraved and awful this regime was.

Now, you can bet the American soldiers had been briefed on all this. Now put yourself in the position of a soldier, who sees a young child pick up an RPG and aim it at him. What a horrible decision to have to make. But he had to make it. Choose wrong, and either a young child dies, or an RPG kills you and the mates you’ve sworn to protect.

It’s assinine to sit here at home and pass judgement on the people forced into situations like that.

87

I suppose a discussion of children at war in Iraq could use a reference to Saddam’s Lion Cubs.

Diogenes may think that it may be ridiculous to believe that young children could fire a simple RPG (aim and pull the trigger, essentially), but Saddam trained a LOT of children to fight.

[qupte]
American troops threatened by chemical weapons and suicide bombings face another danger when they reach Baghdad - Saddam Hussein’s army of children.
Well-trained, ferocious and 8,000-strong, the Ashbal Saddam - Saddam’s Lion Cubs - are waiting in the capital for U.S. forces to arrive, said Peter Singer, a fellow with Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
…
After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Saddam’s security police began forcing boys as young as 6 from their families and into intensive boot camps. There, they are beaten, forced to kill animals and indoctrinated with Baath Party propaganda.

They emerge about age 10 schooled in the use of small arms and basic infantry tactics, clad in black trousers and shirts bearing the inscription “Ashbal Saddam,” said the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights.

U.S. soldiers have battled children before, in Vietnam, Somalia and Afghanistan, where the first American killed in action died from shots fired by a 14-year-old boy.

[/quote]

This is the nature of the enemy. Perhaps some on the anti-war side held their opinions because they just don’t realize how incredibly depraved and awful this regime was.

Now, you can bet the American soldiers had been briefed on all this. Now put yourself in the position of a soldier, who sees a young child pick up an RPG and aim it at him. What a horrible decision to have to make. But he had to make it. Choose wrong, and either a young child dies, or an RPG kills you and the mates you’ve sworn to protect.

It’s assinine to sit here at home and pass judgement on the people forced into situations like that.

88

My mistake. I know at least the first few series of RPGs are one shot deals.

89

I think a big problem in this discussion is perspective. In the middle ages, a child of noble birth, by the time he was ten years old, would have been expected to have been trained at least to the level of fighting prowess of any peasant soldier or low level infantry fighter, having been drilled since the age of 5 or 6 in the ways and wiles of combat. Just because we see and treat a 10 year old as “merely” a child here in the US, doesn’t mean they are treated or taught the same in other places.

In many Native American cultures (before the Europeans), a 10 year old was ready (or near ready) to go through the rituals of manhood, and to become a full fledged warrior and hunter for his tribe. In Africa, there were (and doubtless still are) tribes where a 10 year old was considered old enough to be a man, and was treated as such. The problem is, we are viewing the situation from a modern American perspective, rather than viewing it from a proper cultural point of view.

And yes, a ten year old can understand the consequences of their actions. I’m going to tell my own story now, so please forgive me the indulgence…

When I was eight years old, we used to visit my grandfather on his ranch fairly regularly. Whenever we’d go there, I would see my grandpa’s collection of rifles in their glass case, and man, did I want to try them out. I was always looking at them, and wanting to play with them; to touch them and to make them work.

My grandpa saw this, and one day, took me out on his ranch with a wagon of watermelons and a .22 rifle. He set up the watermelons, then came back, and taught me how to shoot. It was great fun, and man, did I fill those watermelons with holes.

When we were done, my grandfather took the rifle, unloaded it, and put it away. Then he took my hand and walked me out to those watermelons, and stooped low to the ground, touching the splattered remains that littered the area. He beckoned me close, and I came forward as he pointed at the mess.

“You see that, boy?” he said, his face deadly serious. Gone was the light hearted smile that he had while teaching me to aim and fire.

“Yes,” I replied.

“That’s what happens when you shoot something, boy. A gun destroys. It wreaks…it ruins…and there ain’t no fixin’ it when its over. What happened to that watermelon is the same as will happen to a person, or an animal, if you ever shot one. Remember that,” he said. He wasn’t angry, but his voice was one of menacing calm. That was the very last time that I ever looked at a gun and wanted to play with it. I understood the consequences that using such a weapon could have, at eight years old.

To say that a ten year old can’t comprehend consequences is a load of crap. To say that a ten year old can’t comprehend death is a load of crap. I understood it then, and I wasn’t even raised in an environment where death and violence were a daily event. Just because your average 10 year old in the US wouldn’t be capable of such things, doesn’t mean that a 10 year old brought up with violence and weapons somewhere else wouldn’t.

90

Why is a ten-year-old’s life so holy? How is it any different than shooting a 19-year-old who would pick up the RPG? Where’s the cutoff? Okay to shoot if 14, not if 13?

At what point does a person cease being an innocent child and become a culpable? Is there a specific age, or height, or weight? What is it?

Sorry, but a ten-year-old is not the most precious thing on earth. It’s a person five years younger than a fifteen-year-old. I don’t get this whole discussion. If I’m a soldier, I don’t give a damn how old the person is who’s making a move with a weapon. I’m going to kill them. It would suck if the enemy was so uncivilized that they let their children outside when there’s a war on, or worse yet, train them to kill. And yes, I’m sure every soldier would rather never have to shoot kids, but a combatant’s a combatant, and a soldier doesn’t have the luxery of taking time to assess the situation like we expect our police to do.

BTW, the Lee quote is awesome, and a very famous one. Anyone who thinks it’s “dumb” is not the sharpest tool in the shed themselves.

91

They are the harsh realities of war, Bib. Sure, it IS terrible and TRAGIC… but it will ALWAYS happen.

Just think how many of these same children died just by being born in that country… under the rule of that disgusting and dispicable ‘man’ known as Saddam.

Most of us realize this war isn’t about Saddam, it’s about the oil… but in the end, getting rid of Saddam is still better. All wars have civilian casualties. Especially urban warfare.

The kid went for a weapon… regardless of wether he grabbed the launcher itself or just the ammo, at that moment he became a combatant and brought that down upon himself (most likely he was trained to do this anyway).

How many children died that way because of the filthy living conditions?

Then we would have never joined in any war with this knowledge. Moot point to your opinion here. Makes war impossible to any degree.

Civilian casualties happened in World War II. Would you have had us stay out of that one and let the Nazi’s simply over-run most of Europe? Or would you have done the right thing and made the knowing-sacrifice of a few civilians for the greater good of everyone?

I would have launched the war the minute I saw something nasty happening.

Hopefully, we can rebuild Iraq, get it’s economy going and step away from it… but realistically that is not going to happen. Given a few years, I won’t be surprised to find a few McDonald’s on the corners. :slight_smile: