I don’t think so, unless he was referring to Hades as “you guys.”
What-EVER, MAN! I think they should all just be glad there weren’t any Samurai there, or they’d all be dead along with their tanks!
Audie Murphy would be rolling in his grave right now because no one decided to have coverage on that.
I’m just gonna put this out there to show that his killing the Iraqis isn’t all bad. The first rule of war is that Marines only fight eenmy combatants. That means that the 20 Iraqis wouldn’t have died if they weren’t fighting the Marines. It emans that the Iraqis knew there was a chance of death.
and
This is my beef with what SK said. The Marine did his job well. We are trained to kill, he did his job better than most people. I’m not saying that the article is the best. I dont’ look at the numbers so much as that he risked his life to save his platoon. He went above and beyond the call of duty. Instead of 20 Marine killing those 20 Iraqis, 1 Marine killed the 20 Iraqis. He put himself in mroe danger and was victorious. If he didn’t kill them, the Iraqis might have killed Marines, possibly more than 20 Marines. I don’t look at the lives lost, but the lives saved. The Iraqis chose to fight, they did not have to, but chose to. They knew the risk. This Marine is a hero because of the lives he saved. If there were only say 5 Iraqis in teh trench instead of 20 and he killed them, then it is still impressive to me since he still did an outstanding job and saved his men.
Just so you know, Marines are trained to think of doing that sort of stuff. When I was in boot camp, one of the people in charge said “I’m not gonna die for my country, I’m gonna make the enemy die for his.” One my drill instructors also said, “If I die, it’ll only be after I’ve killed abotu 20 or so of those motherfuckers” (keep in mind I went to boot camp before there was much talk fo Iraq). that is also one thing that seperates us from the Army. Marines are all about teh killing. When we depoly to combat it, it isn’t about going overseas, it is about getting some (unless you just recently got back from war).
A simlar story that we are told that happened in WWII happened with GySgt Basilone. He went into a Japanese bunker 2 and came back with machine guns and killed several Japanese in the process. He saved his company or platoon by doing that.
Yes, tbecause we all know how the Canadian media is so much better and more accurate than American media. Any stories of Canadian heroes are of course true, but American ones aren’t.
I call WWII a favorable war because people talk about with high regards and it had a lot of support. People don’t question our being there, but all you hear of Iraq is how we shouldn’t be there. Also, the internment camps aren’t even caomparbable to 9/11. Lots of death vs taking away all possessions. Yeah, now that is just so similar. Yes America fucked the Japanese_Americans in WWII, but it is so different from 9/11 it isn’t even funny. Also, 9/11 hurt Americans financially in many ways, so that sort of covers that. I don’t have much to sya since tghe two things are jsut too different. Also, the Jews killed are exactly the reason why I say people favor WWII. Hades, I’m not fucking Nazi. Believe it or not I don’t hate Jews, homosexuals, intellectuals, ect. I don’t wish they were dead. In fact, I hate what Hitler did, which is similar to most people. Since most people hate the detah Hitler did, it makes many people happy we went to war in WWII and that is why there is such a mythos about the war.
EDIT: Thank you SK for posting the article form the Marine website. That should hopefully give what happened a different perspective.
I think you’re missing my point. I don’t doubt that he did an outstanding job, and I wasn’t even talking about Marines thinking that way or any of the other stuff you brought up. My problem wasn’t with the Marines, it was solely with the guy who wrote that article. He wasn’t just applauding the professional qualities of the Marines. He was focusing on the dead Iraqis, describing them in garish words, and deliberately dwelling over how many dead there were and how great that was, and presenting <i>that</i>, by itself, as if it was “good news” that completely makes up for all the “bad news” we’ve heard. Basically, his article is so slanted towards the <i>killing itself</i> that it makes it seem as if we should be proud of those dead bodies, and not just of a brave Marine. Cless had a good take on this earlier in the thread, too.
Now, it is good that this one guy defended his men and all that, but the article contains no “good news” about the state of the war as a whole. In fact, in unacknowledged contradiction of the author’s premise, it contains a lot of bad news. Let me explain why that is:
- The article says that the Marines were ambushed and taken completely by surprise, which means that the attacks on American forces are still continuing and the insurgency is still going strong. That’s bad news.
- The article also mentions Marines “being cut to ribbons,” implying that many Americans were killed or wounded. That’s bad news.
- 20 dead Iraqis is not “good news” either. The reason why it’s especially obscene to crow about their deaths is because they happen to be fighting in their own country against a foreign invader who has no business being there.
The only good news, then, was the fact that some Marines survived, thanks to the bravery of at least one of them. So basically that amounts to saying something like “Today was a great day in Iraq! Only 25 Americans died today, when 30 could have died!” That’s pathetic - if that’s the only good news we have, then all it does is really show how fucked we are in Iraq. (Not to mention the fact that such a viewpoint trivializes the deaths of those Americans who were killed.)
Despite that, that “news” is still “good” in the sense of showing loyalty of Marines to each other and their courage and stuff like that. But bravery and loyalty didn’t help those Marines who got killed or wounded in the ambush, and it won’t singlehandedly save the war, for the simple reason that the war should never have been fought in the first place and shouldn’t be taking place right now. And that was why the article was so disgusting - because this guy gloated over the dead Iraqis, as if our skill at killing them could somehow justify and “win” the war if we killed enough of them. He just bases whether something is “good” based on how many “enemies” got killed. By the same reasoning, the Vietnam War should be considered a brilliant success because we killed way more Vietnamese than they killed Americans. And a lot of Americans exhibited bravery and loyalty during that war, too - it doesn’t change the fact that the war was a horrible mistake, and that gloating about dead Vietnamese would be disgusting.
That’s cool SK, thanks for clearing that up. Yeah, the article could have been better. That makes a lot of sense SK.
Sure, man, no problem. Thanks.
Its impressive what the guy did, but its not appropriate to discuss real people getting blown apart like in a Hollywood movie and glorifying it like one would watching it and eating pop corn from the safety and comfort of one’s sofa.
Starstorm started to chat with me while I was busy working on a story(not fanfiction- I’ve moved on to professional fictional writing). When he commented on this thread, I agreed to take a look. Here are some points:
Within this site, you will find the true reason why an American soldier is able to do such things. It’s based in a very heartwarming fact that is also central to this site- that no creature is naturally capable of murdering another member of it’s species. They wrestle and roughouse, whereas other species get the full brunt of their horns, teeth, and claws, as they fight for survival. So it is with humans- except for sociopaths, humans are not naturally capable of killing. Few people are capable of killing another human being without sufficient provocation- extreme emotion, a direct order from a superior, etc. And this difficulty only increases as it becomes more intimate- it is far harder to stab someone than to shoot them than to drop a bomb on them. (the website is devoted to ending violence, despite the rather imposing heading)
http://killology.com/art_trained_killing.htm
http://killology.com/art_onkilling_overcoming.htm
The U.S. armed forces found that in WWII, only 15-20% of riflemen actually returned fire. They realized that something needed to be done. By Vietnam, our servicemen had achieved a rate of fire of 95%- meaning that 95 out of a hundred soldiers in combat would return fire. This is our edge. The Iraqi soldiers, OTOH, were nowhere nearly as well disciplined or well trained- they simply could not fire on a human target with the same accuracy and lack of reluctance as our own soldiers. Thus, a few men armed with weapons capable of automatic fire are able to eliminate or force into flight a much larger force. It’s not merely numbers, it’s quality over quantity.
Now, as to the Iraqis themselves. These were not civilians. These were a combination of draftees forced into military servitude to prop up Saddam’s regime, and more willing fighters with a taste for murder and looting- run a search engine on what happened to Kuwait when they occupied it. They stood between American soldiers and a liberated Iraq- and if you doubt that, run another search engine on Saddam’s regime, and what went on under his rule. Killing them was necessary- not a good thing, but necessary.
I spoke with a good friend today at the gym, someone I hadn’t seen in a while. Jason is a Marine reservist who has spent considerable time in Iraq- and had some stories to tell. He commented on how he actually preferred the invasion proper- he knew where everyone stood. They shot at him, he shot back until they died or dropped their weapons and raised their hands. Then he had them taken back to the rear and placed under guard(Jason was very upset about the prison abuse- he called it “our Tet offensive,” and mourned that U.S. soldiers would disgrace themselves and the service so). OTOH, the occupation is very difficult for all. He had two stories to tell on this.
The first was how the terrorists would gather together women and children into a group, then fire at the Marines. When the Marine returned fire, the terrorists would unload a machine gun at the crowd, so that camera crews could get footage of Marines shooting and children exploding. Fortunately, he said, the embedded news crews were able to figure it out, given that the Marines were NOT firing in the direction of the crowd.
The other was about how the terrorists would dress up in American uniforms and shave themselves, then impersonate U.S. servicemen as they broke into homes and terrorized the inhabitants under the guise of their enemies. This was dispelled when Jason and his comrades would make their own sweep of the area. The terrified inhabitants would once again have their doors broken in- only to have a handsome blond man make a single scan of the room with his weapon, before asking if anyone spoke English and offering them the food they had brough with them. “There is no way those men could pass for you, now that we have met you,” they would cry. “You are smiling.” Then they would ask questions about America and sigh in envy at the responses.
Okay, there you have it- more news about what is really going on in Iraq. Now I’m leaving the forum once more, and getting back to my writing. I suppose Starstorm will tell me if I really need to come back- though I really have more important things to do- work on the stories, talk to the publishers, keep training for my next fight…
Yes, tbecause we all know how the Canadian media is so much better and more accurate than American media. Any stories of Canadian heroes are of course true, but American ones aren’t
Let’s take things out of context while simultaneously missing the entire point, because it’s the cool thing to do. This has nothing to do with Canadian vs. American media. It has to do with believeability vs absurdity.
I actually would trust Canadian stories more, though. We just tend to be less prone to distorting information than Americans are.
Also, 9/11 hurt Americans financially in many ways, so that sort of covers that. I don’t have much to sya since tghe two things are jsut too different.
This is exactly what I was just talking about. American propoganda has led you to believe that killing hundreds of thousands of people and torturing millions is somehow justifyable by the intensity of the war.
In reality, it’s simply the American mentality that it’s ok for them to destroy cities on a whim, but it’s not ok for other countries to. It’s also ok for them to have WMDs but not for other countries. But it’s not ok for them to be “terrorized” by other countries. Only they’re allowed to do that. And only they’re allowed to have oil. I could go on forever about American double-standards, but I’m sure you’ve already hear all about it.
And who’s to say his four enemies deserved to die? By your standards, you should disgust yourself.
The marine is a soldier who whips ass, and regardless of whether he agrees with the war or not, it’s either HIS ass or his enemies’ asses.
Considering the Iraqi soldiers are known for attempting to overpower our tanks with jeeps (lol?), don’t assume that it’s one marine versus highly skilled opponents. You’re right about one thing…Marines are killers. But they aren’t murderers. When you’re in the shit, you gotta fight for your life, and he did it for his own life and the lives of his subordinates. That deserves commendation, and if you don’t like it, don’t read the commendation.
And by the way, did anyone see the news this morning? Sarin nerve gas and mustard gas were found in roadside bombs in Iraq. You know, the weapons that they “didn’t have”.
Yeah, they found ONE unmarked shell on the side of the road that <i>allegedly</i> contained a World War II-era gas, was left over from the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties, didn’t actually poison anyone after exploding, and came with no long-range delivery mechanisms. This is, of course, no different from the “stockpiles” and “thousands of tons” of actively produced weapons that Bush frightened the public into believing in. What a huge, looming threat to American security.
Or, they were among those Iraqis who took up arms against us after having family members killed or taken to prisons such as Abu Ghraib (where over 60% of the detainees are innocent according to the Army’s own report). That also has to do with why four fifths of Iraqis want us to leave their country.
By the way, about the general matter of killing Iraqis, no one was claiming that Marines are murderers. However, there has been an attitude of systematic disregard for civilian lives throughout this war, an attitude that has been dictated from the top. Here’s an interview with a former Marine that touches on that subject: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html
Yes, because we all know that there is no Canadian propaganda. Hades, you have heard of the First Amendment right? It means that the American media can say whatever the fuck it wants to say. If it wants to put a positive spin on the war it can, if it wants to put a negative one ont ehw ar it can. There is acensorship about what is shown, but not how it is presented, even then it is partly because of security. Also, the Japanese weren’t tortured in the interment camps.
Yes, because Canadians are just so much better than Americans. Hades, ny saying that you believe what Canadian media says over American media is just stupid. It isn’t necessary for the arguement. You complain about the spin this guy had on his article, but youa re saying that a spin on an article is alright as long as it is Candian. America has some of the most reliabel and free media in the world. Places CNN are extremely reliable.
Actually, it isn’t ok to destroy cities. Another rules of war is to destroy no more than the mission requires. Talk about distorting information. You are putting the actions of one individual and applying them to everyone. Believe it or not Hades, most Americans are not happy with Iraq and don’t believe thatw e should ahve gone. Bush wanted to go, not America.
Also, I love how you do nothing to bring up the credibility of the your Canadian hero. There is at least a story on an official website. Also Hades, the story is very believable.
- You have no idea how well trained Marines are. Its not like this guy was taking on the Republican Guard which is highly trained.
- You think bayonetting all those guys is more believable than shooting them all? Ouch, you need to see psychitrist and watch Blawk hawk Down to see that a bayonet isn’t all that effective of a weapon.
- There is such a thing as "cover and concealment."You think that he was just running in an open field shooting like Rambo or some video game? No, he was taking cover and getting some shots. The zig-zag of the trenches makes this even more believable since it means there was mover once he got in the trench.
- Fog of war. I know that this is gonna be a shocker, but war is fuckingloud and can get very confusing with all that is going on and the adrenaline rush. Not all of the Iraqis were probably aware that he was there. Also, if he flanked them, they had a harder time to react.
Also I lvoe how you ignore some of the points to dispute your arguement. That’s cool. We can’t all make an arguement by addressing all the counter points.
EDIT: Also Hades, read the article on the Marine Corps webite that SK posted. That article is very cut and dry. It tells the same story, but it just gives the facts and nothing more. It says he did this this and this without going into much detail about any part. Maybe that’ll help you believe the story more.
Actually SK, this happened back at the start of the war. You can tell by the way it was told that it is the beginning by the type of fighting the Iraqis did. Also, by his rank; he is now a Captain which takes awhile. Here is something I wouldn’t expect you to know, but it takes FOREVER to get an award in the Marine Corps. My unit was in Iraq at the same time and we still haven’t got all of the awards and they aren’t even as high as that one. These were Iraqi soldiers. Either way it doesn’t matter if they were civilians or not. They chose to fight.
The problem with that line is that we “chose” to fight too. I know the specific Marines in question didn’t have a choice, but it was our country that started the war when there was no reason to do so. So the Iraqis could say the same thing.
I know that we chose to too. I’m just saying, that they knew it could happen. I’m not saying that their deaths are their faults or anything, just that they were aware of the danger and chose to fight, much like this Marine. This Marine just put himself in greater danger.
One thing I should add though. Usually to receive the Navy Cross or Medal of Honor, you die doing the action that gets you the award, which this guy had a huge chance of. Most are awarded to the family members.