60 mins doing segment on Haditha now

family?? you fucking go inside a house, and blow people to bits,disgusting sickening, Jesus Christ, these are civilians, go shoot first ask questions later, that guy Woolridge will have to live seeing those images for the rest of his life, god, I hate this invasion, I absoutely hate this invasion just for fucking Georges lust for oil.

for these fucking lunatics, and we are stuck in middle. Yes, I am upset. How much more of this are Americans going to take, do we need to see blood in our streets before we do something.

He can't admit to what he has done

They will all be living with his memories

by these sick sick men, it is all for oil.

Which the interviewer didn't really ask was:

Did you kill those civilians to "encourage the others?"

In a real sense to me, as a Marine, anyone who lived in shooting distance of that intersection was an enabler of the person(s) who planted that IED.

They knew the bomb was there. Did any of those people run out and say, "wait, stop! Lance Corporal Terraza - don't go that way!"

No, they didn't.

And the Marines knew they'd have no help from the locals. So maybe S/Sgt Wutterich shot everybody in sight so that the -next- time that happened, someone -would- come out and provide some vitally needed intel on the situation.

So that is the question: did he kill those people to encourage better future action by other Haditha residents, or not?

It -is- true that our guys are in an impossible situation and under impossible stress because of the policies of the Bush Administration.

I urge everyone reading this to send an e-mail to "60 Minutes" and ask them when are they going to hold President Bush to the same standard they held this fine young Marine to?

None of us sitting here can judge the actions of those Marines.

Walt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"What a sick fucking concept that you justify murder of innocent women and children as merely a "warning shot." What if they didn't know anything. You've lost your fucking humanity and sanity."


No one should think that any of the adults living proximate to that intersection were -innocent-.

They knew the bomb was there. They saw it buried. They saw who buried it.

Walt

If not condoning the slaughter of unarmed women and children makes me "lily livered," I'd say you've overdosed on your RDA of irony. :eyes:

"If not condoning the slaughter of unarmed women and children makes me "lily livered," I'd say you've overdosed on your RDA of irony."

You can't grasp the fundaments of the situation.

--None-- of the -women- were unarmed.

They knew the bomb was there. They were armed with -that- knowledge and it could have saved the life of a young Marine who gave his life so you could condemn him and his mates.

Since this seems like it will continue let me add a disclaimer:

Although I have trained as a Marine infantryman and learned the exact techniques that were used in Haditha and was deployed for Desert Shield/Storm in 1990/91, I have not ever been in a combat situation.



Walt

Your credentials don't impress me and your rationalizations for war crimes sicken me. I grasp more than you could dream of because I have several decorated vets in my immediate family.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. :hi:

"Your credentials don't impress me and your rationalizations for war crimes sicken me. I grasp more than you could dream of because I have several decorated vets in my immediate family."

You don't know any war crimes were committed.

Don't you think S/Sgt Wutterich deserves his day in court?

I have indicated that war crimes -may- have been committed by S/S Wutterich.

And I suppose you are admitting that you have never been fired at or engaged in close range combat. Well, neither have I.

But I do firmly believe your prejudices are showing. If I am prejudiced, I am at least prejudiced in -favor- of US Marines, not against them, as you so clearly are.

Walt

The Viet nam parallel is that the Viet Cong would come in and kill any village chief that helped us. We couldn't protect them.

Same concept in Haditha. The people living proximate to that intersection -knew- that bomb was there.

If they told us, they die. if they don't tell us - they die.

And that choice was forced on them by George Bush.

Walt

no doubt about that

You are supporting the MURDER of innocent & unarmed
women and children. Decent people generally consider
such things to be MONSTROUS.

First I would like to say that I did not see the 60 minutes episode. Now on to my question, how do we know that all the women, children and other locals knew that the place was armed? I expect that a few people would know, but everyone? As stated before I did not see the episode and if this was covered my bad.

"First I would like to say that I did not see the 60 minutes episode. Now on to my question, how do we know that all the women, children and other locals knew that the place was armed? I expect that a few people would know, but everyone? As stated before I did not see the episode and if this was covered my bad."

You make a good point.

I would weigh the chance of someone digging a hole in the pavement in front of your house and you not knowing it. What are the chances of that?

And - =someone= had a -line-of-sight- to the bomb. They command detonated it.

The locals knew that that this -someone- was there. And if a few knew it, they soon all would.

As I indicated earlier, they were were in an impossible situation also.

Walt

Thank you

But the presumption of guilt carries with it an immediate death sentence. We're spreading the wonderful example of American democracy to the unarmed women and children (those sly secret-keepers) of Iraq.

Go Marines!!!

If the Marines did nothing wrong in Haditha then why did the Marines try to cover it up? Armed with knowledge is not armed in the sense that you imply it is. If they were indeed armed with knowledge. In that sense, then the Marines should just kill everyone in Iraq and claim they were all armed combatants.

Seems like Semper Fi has become Semper Lie.

I was looking at the rah-rah crap going on when bush went over to Iraq on one of his Imperial "Surprise Visits." I guess they're still hand-picking those who fawn and cheer with which to surround him so it'll look good for the cameras and the folks at home. I'd like to know who was left outside, locked out of the meeting, because they weren't gung-ho for killing, killing, and more killing. That's how it was when his lordship snuck over for Thanksgiving and paraded around with that plastic turkey platter for all those nice brave, patriotic photo-ops. Only select few were allowed in to share the "Thanksgiving dinner." Everybody else who couldn't be guaranteed to cheer and applaud was left outside in the heat, making do with MREs while those inside got turkey with all the trimmings.

Absolutely

more so

That is the truth

we can't judge until we have all the facts.I was horrified that he even had to make that choice.

Thank you for your service, and your perspective. It may have been an "encouragement" factor, or maybe a "discouragement" inducement to keep others among the locals from collaborating...

I don't know. I have no military experience. Never saw combat. Never wanted to. I'm just dreadfully afraid that activity like this only encourages and enrages the population against us. We take civilians and turn them into mortal enemies. I know how I'D feel as a woman, wife, mother, if some Imperial Stormtroopers burst into my house and gunned down everyone else in sight, or if it happened to one of my friends or my nextdoor neighbors. Hell of a way to "win hearts and minds."

Yes, I wish TO GOD that bush would be held to the same standard of questioning as all the underlings far below him who are doomed to take the rap for him while he skates away untouched. AGAIN.

I'm an infantry combat vet. I can judge those murderering criminal assholes all I want.

You condone murdering civilians so if you are truly a Marine, you are a disgrace to the uniform as well.

But I doubt you've ever worn combat boots.

if you feel threatened you are free to act to save your life and the lives of your men. In this case if the Sgt. can prove he was threatened he committed no crime. I would do the same if I felt threatened. Better to live with the images of dead Iraqis than be dead because you hesitated or have to face the family of one of your men because they died when you hesitated. I would hope that every American military person would choose a dead Iraqi before a dead American.... I know this Old Sergeant would...........

He made no positive identification of his target when he attacked the two houses. He had no knowledge enemy combatants were in those locations, and no reliable indication there ever had been. In none of these instances was his 'belief' he was threatened a reasonable one. The fact is, the man lost his head, and lit up anything in sight without any more regard for 'rules of engagement' than anything else except rage and grief.

the rules clearly state if one feels threatened, if one feels ones life is in danger, one must act with extreme violence to eliminate the threat to the personal self or fellow American soldiers. There is no need to ID if there is extreme danger felt.......That's why the other two guys got off, and why I believe the SGT. will get off as well. The rules are crafted for events just such as these, if one can prove the threat was legitimate, then it is not a crime in the eyes of the military.

Not nearly good enough.

There must be some component of reasonableness in the assessment of 'feeling' oneself under threat, otherwise that purported standard is a lisence to shoot at whim and phantoms, and plead "But I was scared, Sir!" to evade any consequence in aftermath. That plea deserves no more than a brisk slap, some grotesque sexual insult, and busting to the ranks if made by an NCO. If the command authority is setting the bar too low, as certainly seems to be the case here, whether in the interests of cover-up, or a misguided belief they deprive the enemy of propaganda points by not prosecuting, or an equally misguided belief doing so is a necessary safe-guard to morale among the rank and file, then that is a seperate problem, and into the bargain a seperate instance of criminality, for failure to prosecute violations of the Geneva Accords is itself a violation, establishing command responsibility for the actions of rank and file riflemen firmly onto the authority that does not prosecute.

By the Sergeant's own account, in storming the two houses, he made no identification of his target, and no attempt at reconnoiter: he simply heard several shots from that direction, and fixed on the nearest shelter as their source, without any real cause to do so but laziness of mind compounded by rage and fear. The second house stormed is even worse. Again, by the Sergeant's own words, he decided that armed men had fled there from the first house, though he never saw any armed men in the first house, or any sign such had ever been present there, nor did he claim, even, to have seen them flee the first house, or enter the second one. He was not at that time under fire, had seen no enemy combatant at all at any point, and simply cannot make a credible claim he was acting under imminent threat and taking the best steps possible to remove that threat.

Put bluntly, Sir, there really is no way around it: the man fucked up, he fucked up badly, and deserves a heavy sentence for sheer incompetence, let alone criminal behavior. The finding of a pack of officers to the contrary does not matter a tinker's damn to me....

I am saying from the military point of view, that screwup might not be enough to get him to go to jail.

You and I both know he was wrong and is close to being a monster, BUT the Rules of Engagement don't really care about that, they ask 2 questions.

1. Did you feel threatened?

2. Did you act to eliminate that threat?

If the answer to both questions is yes and you can prove it, then as far as the American military is concerned nothing criminal was done. These are the rules I live under, and I know this will stir up crap, but if my choice is doing what the Sergeant did and being wrong or failing to act and getting one of my guys killed, I'll take the jail time if I cannot prove there was a threat. I don't make apologies for what happens in a war zone, things are brutal, ugly and destructive to the human soul. That being said the ROE's don't care about any of that, they only care that they were followed correctly........I'm sure you and I will have more to discuss later, but it is a beautiful Hawaiian morning and I hear the waves calling me.......

Are the requirements of the Geneva Accords, and a body of precedent defining the actual meaning of loose phrases like 'feeling threatened'. The man did not apply the R.O.E. correctly, and he has done great harm to the country and the Corps thereby. If he is not charged and convicted, that harm will only be grotesquely compounded.

and I had flashbacks to my last manager, who was a habitual liar. He could lie so well he believed himself. And even in those moments when his voice broke and his eyes started to look away he still said the right thing. "I was doing what I was trained to do."

Unless he serves time for those horrible crimes there is no justice in this world at all. And we have to deliver justice in this life, this world.

"and I had flashbacks to my last manager, who was a habitual liar. He could lie so well he believed himself. And even in those moments when his voice broke and his eyes started to look away he still said the right thing. "I was doing what I was trained to do."

Unless he serves time for those horrible crimes there is no justice in this world at all. And we have to deliver justice in this life, this world."

So you are not willing to give S/Sgt Wutterich his day in court either.

As I suggested, I'd rather be prejudiced towards our Marines, not against them.

When were you last in actual contact with an armed enemy force, by the way?

Walt

Walt

Assuming that's really you, of course.

Being a marine does not give one the right to deliberately murder civilians.

"Being a {M}arine does not give one the right to deliberately murder civilians"

Well, we can agree on that, can't we?

It may well be that S/Sgt Wuterich was acting within the rules of engagement.

We'll see.

When referring to United States Marines, the term "Marine" is always capped.

Walt

who loves this country is going to hear a story like this and automatically say: "baby killers."

Walt

Wrap it in all the flag-waving crapaganda you want,
but people who murder babies are baby killers.

To imagine that patriotism somehow changes that FACT
is nothing short of psychotic.

about not loving your country because you recognize a baby killer when you see and hear one...that's just typical...you give yourself away spouting that kind of shit!! :mad:

Then these are so poorly drawn as to border on the criminal themselves.

The facts remain that the Sergeant's men killed upwards of a dozen non-combatants before they managed to kill a single armed man. On his own testimony he made no attempt whatever to determine if non-combatants were present in the buildings he ordered stormed, and they were stormed in a manner that made no attempt to minimize casualties to non-combatants. He acted in a manner appropriate to a 'clean' battlefield; he was not on such a battlefield, and ought to have known he was not.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Chief among them is that whether the Sergeant acted 'carelessly', as you put it, or with deliberate intent 'pour encourager les autres', does not define the difference between lawful and criminal behavior, but only between degrees of criminality. To completely disregard the chance of harming non-combatants, as by his own words he did, is as much a breach of the Geneva Accords as to deliberately kill non-combatants, though not so grave a breach. You are arguing, in effect, that he is guilty of aggravated manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, rather than that he is innocent of any crime.

Appeals to either 'the stress' or 'the situation' do not make much impact on me. If the man was not up to the stress, he was in the wrong position, both in life and in the Corps, and while this would indicate a problem that goes well beyond the Sergeant himself, that does not alter that he failed to behave as a commander should under the stress of combat, and in a manner that broke the Geneva Accords, and not in a momentary lapse, but over a sustained period of time. The situation in which he did this is nothing exculpatory. He concluded first that people he saw in line of sight of the initial explosion had caused it, and then, after a considerable lapse in time, that people in buildings in line of sight of his position had not only caused the explosion, but fired several rounds at his men. Neither of these conclusions were warranted; neither of these conclusions were accurate.

"Poor soul: it appears he was not up to the strain."

I have this amazing power called "thinking".

"If His Actions, Sir, Did Fall Within The Rules Of Engagement
Edited on Sun Sep-02-07 10:41 PM by The Magistrate
Then these are so poorly drawn as to border on the criminal themselves.

The facts remain that the Sergeant's men killed upwards of a dozen non-combatants before they managed to kill a single armed man. On his own testimony he made no attempt whatever to determine if non-combatants were present in the buildings he ordered stormed, and they were stormed in a manner that made no attempt to minimize casualties to non-combatants. He acted in a manner appropriate to a 'clean' battlefield; he was not on such a battlefield, and ought to have known he was not."

Not on a battlefield? Where did those dead and wounded Marines come from?

Several of you people -will not- fairly consider the situation.

After the interview with S/Sgt Wuterich, I got straight on the computer, because I knew that ignorant people would be making ignorant statements.

And I am thinking that maybe FOX is right. Some liberals, at least, don't love this country.

That is what this rush to judgment shows.

Walt

Particularly when you are doing so in such close proximity to the full text in question. My comment did not state he was not on 'a battlefield', my statement was that the Sergeant acted as if he was on a 'clean' battlefield, one upon which the chances non-combatants were present was slim to none. He acted in a manner reminiscent of Gen. Chuikov's advice to his soldiers at Stalingrad, that the grenade is your best friend, and you should never enter a room he has not called out from in welcome to you. The Sergeant's behavior would have been quite appropriate in a pitched battle between two battalions over a village in the enemy's country. It was hideously and criminally inappropriate in a skirmish with a detachment of guerrillas employing hit and run tactics in a populated area.

The fact is that the Sergeant did exactly what the enemy who engaged his unit hoped that he would, and that his actions made their operation a success beyond their wildest dreams for the outcome of their attack. He handed the men engaged in armed opposition to the U.S. occupation a cause celebre of inestimable value to them, that has served to turn many in the Iraqi populace more firmly against the U.S., and led to the enlistment of a great many fighters in their ranks who might otherwise have remained on the sidelines. The method of guerrilla war is precisely to goad the enemy into poorly aimed and atrocious actions, that greatly benefit the guerrillas politically. Even laying aside the question of criminality, the Sergeant allowed the enemy to impose their will upon him in the engagement, and that is the definition both of defeat and of incompetence in a commander.

Your recurring theme that open-eyed regard of what occured at Haditha indicates a hate for our country deserves some small degree of engagement, unpleasant as doing so is. Commodore Decatur's famous line, "My Country, right or wrong!" did, in the actual toast he made that night, go well beyond that truncated version, and reads in full "My Country, right or wrong! When right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right!" Anyone who supposes patriotism consists in cheering on whatever is done by a nation's government and armed forces, and insisting no wrong ever is, or could ever be, done by them, clearly has not given so much as two minutes consecutive thought to the question ever in his or her life. One of the great political assets enjoyed by the United States in world affairs is a reputation for decent, moral, and most importantly, self-correcting, behavior. Like most reputations, it is somewhat exaggerated, but that has not lessened its value to our country and its people. The line you are pressing, like the actions of the Sergeant at Haditha, do more to shred and destroy this priceless asset of reputation for exemplary behavior than any amount of criticism of actual wrongs committed by our government and soldiery engaged in by citizens of this free and democratic Republic.

"War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"For the Haditha perps, there was no armed danger."

You don't know that. And one of their buddies had just been blown up. Can you guarantee how you would react emotionally in the next few minutes if your best friend was blown in half?

You rush to judgment. Shame on you.

When you call those Marines perps, you show that while you live in this country, but you don't much care for it.

From what I have heard about what happened in Haditha that day, I felt certain that murder had been done. After listening to S/Sgt Wuterich, I am not so sure.

A court will decide.

Walt

I think it was the other Marine they interviewed who said that all those Marines knew the consequences of trying to acertain who was in a room by knocking on the door.

You get shot.

Now, imagine yourself knocking on those doors.



Walt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When did Iraq attack us? When did Iraq provoke us into attacking them? When did Iraq declare war on us? We declared war on Iraq. Why did we declare war on Iraq? For no reason apparently other than to get rid of Saddam Hussein and gain control of the oil reserves. Once you get beyond the lies of this evil administration which told its lies to our Congress as well as to the United Nations, there was no other basis. And it was hardly the basis for a war. If someone did that to us, we would probably arm ourselves the way the Iraqis have. And defend ourselves. We are aggressors. Not liberators. We are the evildoers. Not we, however, you. The guys in uniform you no longer wear so proudly as far as a growing number of Americans feel. You have dishonored us along with the uniform.

The first thing you did when you arrived in Baghdad was secure the Oil Ministry. After destroying the National Museum and thousands of years of civilization on display there. Sums up the priorities. And sums up what was to follow. You have destroyed a country. Does that make you proud? The few, the proud, the Marines. Destroying a country and its peoples is something to be proud of? The few, the proud, the delusional, the Marines.

Fuck the military indeed. And fuck those who would defend the military in this. You have no reason be in Iraq doing anything. You certainly are not defending anyone. Least of all us, the American people. Personally I think the military should be tried for war crimes as well as this administration. And god love DU - I just love being able to say fuck on a forum.

Semper Fi is nothing more than Semper Lie.

Seriously, did Congress issue a declaration of war?