Chicks Get In the Way

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Jeff Hampton, Apr 7, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    I'm having a real problem here, and I'm hoping for some honest input.

    I was somewhat opposed/ambivalent to the war before it started. But from the moment the bombs started falling, I have wanted the U.S. to win swiftly, with a minimum of casualties on both sides. And I support our troops.

    However, it is difficult for me to support people who revel in killing, particularly the killing of civilians.

    I'm speaking of a March 28 New York Times story in which Marine Sgt. Eric Schrumpf stated, "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people."

    The story also states:

    He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down.

    "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."

    I'm not saying that this soldier was wrong to kill a woman who happened to be in the way. This is war. It happens, and I believe that the U.S./Allied forces are trying to avoid civilian casualties.

    My problem is equating having a good day with killing lots of people. My problem is that this soldier showed no remorse for having killed an innocent woman.

    If the man had said something like, "It was a tough day. We had to kill a lot of people. And, unfortunately, to accomplish our mission we had to kill a civilian woman." Well, it would be a different story.

    "We had a great day." "Sorry, but the chick was in the way." It seems that this soldier considers the Iraqis, military or civillian, to be sub-human. And yet I imagine that he would say that the reason that he is there is to liberate those very same civilians.

    When I say that I support our troops, is this what I am supporting?
     
  2. Mike Albrecht

    Mike Albrecht New Member

    No, what you are supporting is that other picture that appeard showing two soldiers pulling a wounded civilian out of danger.
     
  3. Han

    Han New Member

    You will never agree with 100% of a side. For your one example, I can name 100 that have soliders torn up about having to kill those "in the way". There is always one jerk in every crowd, I side with the other 99.9%.

    It is similar to those who do not believe in abortion. They might not agree with those who go and kill the doctors that give abortions, but they still believe in the same argument as those who have done that - not sure if that analogy works, but kind of :rolleyes:
     
  4. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    True. But what is one to do when he/she strongly disagrees with BOTH sides?

    Where do you get a bumper sticker that says, "I support our troops (except for the few sociopaths) (and yes, I understand that most American troops have only the best of intentions). However, I wish there could have been a diplomatic solution. I fear that this is the beginning of a never-ending war. And, utimately, I fear that our country's policies will lead to further terrorism at home, and more instability in the Middle-East and throughout the world. But if it ultimately ends in the adoption of some kind of democracy throughout the world, maybe it's worth it."
     
  5. Denver

    Denver Member

    I have a problem with quotes like this in that we do not know the context. This is a story that was based on the notes of a reporter under fire. It was probably phoned in via satellite phone (which according to the press is plagued with reception problems), it was edited (that is what editors do whether you want them to or not) and then edited again to fit in news hole on the page. As far as the soldier’s remarks, if you were under 22 (the age of most of the soldiers) , being shot at and some reporter came up and asked such a question – you would probably be as brief as possible too.

    I noticed today that another soldier stated that Sadam’s palace would make a good Six Flags – I hope we don’t see “Amusement Park Planned for Baghdad” in tomorrow’s headlines.

    Denver
     
  6. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

    Civilians always lose when there's war. In this case, this marine may have had no choice but to act according to his survival instinct. The woman was obviously in the middle of a firefight. These things happen.

    Just remember. Over 2,000 civilians killed at the WTC in NYC and another 280 killed at the Pentagon. These people had families too.
     
  7. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    I agree 100% with Roysavia. When you are required to go into battle and do a job, your mindset changes. For example, in the movie "Saving Private Ryan," Captain Miller said something like "every German that I kill means that I am that much closer to going home" (not an exact quote). War is hell. I just don't think that we should place judgement on any of our servicemen and women unless we have been in their shoes. All of the war protesting that has been going on smells a lot like the Vietnam War era....and it stinks. Personally, I think that the time for protesting this war is over. We are now committed to it and I think that we should support our troops 100%.

    Cy
     
  8. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Of course civilians always lose. Moreover, I do not question that this Marine acted appropriately.

    My problem is the reaction. It seemed that this guy truly enjoyed killing these people, and the fact that some of them were civilains (and women) was unfortunate, but part of the game.

    And this was not a kid. The guy is 28. He's a Sargent. A LEADER.

    I hope this was just incredibly poor reporting. But whether you agree with the NY Times editorial page or not, you have to acknowledge that this is not some tabloid -- it is one of the most respected papers in the country, if not the world.

    Right. So that makes it OK for us to kill Iraqi civilians???? I truly don't understand this thinking. Perhaps Iraq was involved in 9-11. I honestly have no idea. But I believe that it is wrong to use this supposition (whether true or not) to justify the remorseless killing of Iraqi civilians.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2003
  9. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    I agree. The minute the bombing started, I walked out into my front yard and took down my "Americans for Peace" sign. I am now an "American for Victory". I am now an Amercian for our troops, even though I do have a few problems with some individual actions.

    However, I believe that the U.S. should remain a free society.

    D'uh! Right?

    Not at all. There has been a bill introduced in the Oregon legislature that would classify nearly everyone who protests against the war as "terrorists" and would subject them to sentences of 25 years to life.

    Here's a story from the Boston Globe:
    Bill in Oregon seeks to jail war protesters as terrorists

    And then there is the upcoming "Patriot Act II":

    Google News search for "Patriot Act II" (Note: This is a current search. It displays recent news with this phrase in the story.)

    Sure, it hasn't passed yet, but if John Ashcroft gets his way, any Americans ACCUSED of terrorism (protesting against the war, for example) will LOSE their U.S. CITIZENSHIP. The Constitution will no longer apply to them. The government can do anything it wants.

    Gosh, I guess that's what we get for getting in the way. Sorta like those chicks in Iraq.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2003
  10. Myoptimism

    Myoptimism New Member

    I couldn't get the link to work. Here is a link from reuters.
    This is scary, but I doubt it will ever be passed. That, I think, would be getting in the way of the United States.

    Tony
     
  11. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    This sounds like as close to remorse as it gets from someone who was fighting for his life a few minutes earler.

    For those who have never fired a weapon, you don't always hit what you're aiming at. I specialized in this.

    With automatic fire, a lack of control is countered with a volume of lead causing more of a chance for collateral damage.

    To risk ones own life and those of his friends by not targeting ones enemy would be a dereliction of duty.

    Trash talk - you have to dehumanize the enemy or maybe you don't want to kill him so much. It ain't checkers.
     
  12. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    Did you read the story? Although its not completely clear, it sounds to me as if these guys were in a "sniper's perch" and were not under fire. It sounds like they were picking targets at their discretion, rather than being under fire and returning fire. It does not sound like they were "fighting for their lives."

    Fair enough. But do you have to dehumanize civilians? Perhaps. I honestly don't know. I've never been there. But it seems incredibly counterproductive. Imagine the sentiment in the Arab world when they read that "the chick got in the way." Why create martyrs?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2003
  13. Han

    Han New Member

    Jeff - Even reading the story, a reporter may have his own agenda.

    I hope this one quote doesn't taint your opinion on all the troops fighting.

    And as for your bumper sticker - I think many, many, many would agree with your opinion exactly. For me, I have thought a lot about this. I have decided that I wanted this war for reasons other than the reasons we may be there. Is it for oil? Maybe, but if it gets an inhumane man who tortures millions and kills children in front of their parents (I have read in great detail on this issue), I think we should be there.

    For those who say the Iraqi people are fightling against us, they may be, but just becuase they don't want to have happen in the Gulf War, when we didn't back them up and they were killed and tortured - I understand why they are hesitant.

    Jeff - I respect your opinion, and I wrestle with the same sorts of issues - good people do!
     
  14. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member


    QUOTE
    " He recalled one such incident, in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down."


    Sounds like a firefight to me.
     
  15. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Oregon sure has lots of laws.
     
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    You've obviously never been in "Indian Country" (a combat zone). Whenever you're carrying a weapon loaded with live ammunition in an area where the enemy is doing the same, you're fighting for your life.

    The first rule of war is that people get killed. The second rule is that you can't change the first rule. The deaths of civilians is a tragic but usually unavoidable consequence of armed conflict. If the woman truly did get in the way of a firefight, it's not surprising that she was hit. Tragic, but not shocking either.

    I know nothing about the stock market, so I don't analyze & critique those who trade every day. Until you grab an M-16, hump a rucksack, and do some time in a combat zone, please don't jump to conclusions about our professional soldiers.


    Bruce
     
  17. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    ...but (and I'm sure Bruce would agree with me on this point) please do bring up these sorts of concerns in a public forum so that they can be hashed out. As long as the American system is a democracy rather than a militocracy, we aren't just permitted to criticize military policy we disagree with--we're obligated to do so.


    Peace,
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Yes!

    What I am saying is that those who have not served in a combat zone should not criticize the split-second decisions that our soldiers have to make on a daily basis. I have been in firefights (Gulf War I), and they are perfect examples of total chaos.

    Permitted.....of course. Obligated....well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


    Bruce
     
  19. kevingaily

    kevingaily New Member

    I agree Bruce!

    When I was in basic training we would line up row upon row in our battalion with fixed bayonets. On a pedestal a drill instructor would scream out through a bull horn, " What's the theory of the bayonet?" To this we would all cry out with all our might, " To kill drill sergant, to kill without mercy." As harsh as this sounds to a civilian, you need to know that we had to be trained to unthinkingly attack and react to whatever came our way. Soldiers are not police. They are in essense professional fighters. The cute little "be all you can be" commercials that remind you of the Boy Scouts aren't the real deal. We are trained to lay aside fears and reservations as best as possible. Why? If not, if not the "brainwashing", we would freeze in combat and all could be lost. That said, and I'm not defending what any one soldier said. Soldiers tend to emotionally detach themselves from their enemies so that don't find themselves unable to fight. Later, when the smoke clears then the post traumatic stress can seep in when they begin to think about what they went through, and that they actually killed someone or some people. A lot of the talk you hear now is bravado. Deep down I am fairly certain most who kill will remember those faces for the rest of their lives. Ask this of any WWII vet. At eighty, they can still remember vivid details. My pop fought in 'NAM and still is jumpy at times, and can freak out if you supprise him from behind.

    I do want to clarify that I hate death. My heart aches as I contemplate some poor woman's life snuffed out. I'm just saying how it is in combat... in the heat of the moment.

    Kevin


    Ps. I served four years of active duty. Two of which were with the 3rd Infantry Division.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2003
  20. DCross

    DCross New Member

    I think it is crappy to ask these guys do something that most most people can't do, and then criticize them for it.

    We sleep under the blanket of the very security they provide, and then question the manner in which they provide it! (that sounds familiar). Let's face it, they have a tough job that requires a different mindset. Success means people on the other side die. However he needs to reconcile his mind is okay with me, so long as I don't have to kill anyone.

    I have an idea! I know we have freedom of speech and everything, but if things here are so damn terrible.........why don't you guys go somewhere else? Is it that you realize that you won't have the same feedoms that are provided and protected by our baby-killers?

    This self-righteous BS is really getting old!
     

Share This Page