Killing some of them and celebrating it by mutilating their corpses is probably not a good way to demonstrate your goodwill towards them.
For one thing, they don’t really regard their victims as people; it’s like posing next to a deer you shot. I recall all the pictures of Japanese trophy skulls from WWII, including ones where soldiers had their girlfriends pose with the skull.
Also, there’s probably an element of Stone Age male dominance instincts going on. I’ve read in the past for example that the presence of witnesses actually increases the chance of a man murdering out of passion. Stupid if you want to get away with a crime, but it made more sense when it was about proving to the tribe how lethal you were. On some instinctive, unconscious level guys like this “want” to be seen with their victims.
No, but the UCMJ does, and it is in effect upon all members of the US military, no matter what branch. The wording is “Death, or as a Courtsmartial may provide.” what matters is the type of courtsmartial convened. General Courtsmartial can condemn, not a Special Courtsmartial. The actual penalty per crime is given in the specific article used.
[not that I condone unwarrented killing]
Actually, you ‘rule’ through firm action, not through indecision. Previously in history armies garrisoning conquered lands did it frequently with a policy of you wound one of us, 1 of you dies, you kill one of us, 10 of you dies. We are trying to be a lot more humane, but I have to admit that I sort of wish for the old style decimation parades just to get the damned process over. Very antisocial, but they do not seem to see that we occupied Germany and Japan, and left them economically better off and did not force them into a religion change [in the case of Japan] so I am baffled as to why changing a theocracy to a democracy with freedom of religion is so bad. <shrug> but then again, I was not born as a second class slave female into a theocracy.
Although I do sort of have fantasies of somehow organizing all the females to tattoo a notice to all the men holding them down with a small notice of ‘you have to sleep sometime, and you could have been killed instead of tattooed … give us our rights now or die in your sleep.’
Then don’t fucking go occupying it in the first place :rolleyes:
What makes you think they typically ever “got the damned process over”? Decimation parades and the like didn’t do that; keeping a conquered populace subjugated was a permanent task, not something you get over and done with*. The British dominated much of the world for centuries and were often ruthless about it; that didn’t keep the conquered from hating them and throwing them off when they could.
*The only exceptions being when you are willing to destroy the conquered as a people, or when you simply choose to leave.
We aren’t doing any such thing in Afghanistan, or trying to. It’s simply another example of us supporting a faction of murderous thugs because we think they are useful tools, nothing more.
Here’s a example of a reason why they might not just shut up and take it. From the link in the OP. Pic 11/18
When people are angry because some motherfucker just killed someone you know or a family member, logic and sense tends to leave them.
Hope these bastards get all that’s coming to them.
Hm, we seemed to ‘got the damned process over’ in Germany and Japan, at least I do not seem to remember any garrison control troops left in either Germany or Japan … yes we do have troops there, but we are not controlling their governments any longer … and I am not British, I am American. I am discussing the shindig in Afghanistan, not occupied Guam. [though Guam does not seem to chafe under our ownership that I have ever noticed, and the US Virgin Islands seemed pretty mellow to being occupied when we visited last Feb, as did Puerto Rico.]
And there is a definite difference between a proper military garrisoning and the crap going on in Afghanistan. We have already discussed how there will always be some psycho getting through the mental screening and into the military where they can get opportunities to commit crimes.
Or are you implying that the candy trapping is current military practice theater wide?
Doesn’t really matter. Lots of civilians have been killed either by murder or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up with a cluster bomb/drone/whatever killing them. What matters is that the US is held responsible for those deaths and it matters jot that you or I may view the overall mission as a possible good.
Also a lot of people tend to act irrationally when it comes to foreigners coming in and telling them what to do. You basically said that the US were being nicer in general that they and others have been to other countries and the Afghanis should get that and get with the program. This may seem very sensible to you but that’s not how the real world works.
Not condoning this, obviously, but has there ever been a war that went on this long (or even half as long) when things like this didn’t happen? This is one reason you don’t go to war unless you absolutely have to. War is hell, and shit happens when you send > 100k young men out to do almost anything.
And…what, exactly? People shouldn’t be appalled because shit happens in war?
Morlock? The guy’s name is Morlock? You gotta be shitting me! I would laugh if I wasn’t so busy trying not to scream.
Did I say that?
I know. First thing I thought when I read this story-- now, where have I heard that name before…?
Thanks, Attack. You see, Ogre? It’s not that hard to construct a coherent OP.
Well, sort of. As long as we as a society agree that war is an acceptable option, it would be hypocritical and/or naive to be apalled with anything that comes with war.
Besides the fact that it’s just another cheap shot by the RS gang?
You realize there are many more homicidal psychopaths wearing civilian clothes stalking the streets of downtown U.S.A. right now, don’t you?
Did you also discuss how the murder rate for the military compares to the civilian population?
I think he’s implying that anything bad that happens in the military broad brushes the entire military and the whole U.S. foreign policy community in a very bad light.
Actually, yes: " War is hell, and shit happens when you send > 100k young men out to do almost anything." Not sure how else to construe that, which is really why I asked my question. Let me be clearer: what are you trying to argue?
I refuse to believe this. No. Don’t bother with proof, never mind the glossy photos with the circles and arrows and explanations on the back of what each one means. Forget it. Nothing, up to and including an affidavit from God Almighty countersigned by the Archangel Gabriel, will convince me. Period. Full stop.
No.
Hypocritical and naive? That seems like a strange way to describe beliefs and principles that are enshrined in international law defining what is acceptable behaviour during a war, and what isn’t. For example, see the Hague conventions, the Geneva conventions, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, etc.
See also Final Solution & Rape of Nanking, to name a couple. I’m pretty appalled by them, and if that makes me hypocritical and naive, so be it.