My Lai massacre

not so

at no point did i say it was OK, what i said was war is full of bad things and so far there is no way to stop every one of them from happening. civilans have, do , and always will get caught in the crossfire. troops will sucumb to the pressures or act in haste [moving slowly in combat can get you killed]. bad guys have and still do try to use them as cover or shields [ a true atrocity IMHO]. bombs miss, bad intell happenes, and so on. there will never be a war where something beyond "normal" combat does not happen. in spite of the best intentioned ROEs war is still being fought by men who are operating with most of the rules of civilised behavour suspended. once they become used to being free and encouraged to kill and maim its not all that far to the failure of the rest of the rules given the right set of conditions. troops universally hate fighting unlawful combatents and when they have been subjected to what seems like an unending assualt from IEDs, booby traps, snipers, and other activities the civilians that may be either supporting or engaging in the attacks become legal targets in the minds of many of the troops. all it takes then is one act to ignite the fire and you have an atrocity. its not right but is does happen and will continue to happen as long as this type of warfare continues. good leadership and training goes a long way to stop it but there are weakly led units in every army and in time training may get overwhelmed by combat as troops become more willing to to whatever it takes to stay alive. that atrocities happen in combat should suprise no one. to the contary is suprising that they don't happen more often.

 

The "it just happens" argument keeps being brought up in threads about atrocities, always in defence of those guilty of committing the atrocities, and it worries me a little. Even if the argument provides a decent explanation for why these things happen, I cannot understand why those who post them never add that it is still something that must not happen, should never have happened and should never happen again. If we don't condemn this kind of thing with every chance we get, how much longer will it be until we find ourselves saying "it was just circumstances, you can't blame them" with every atrocity we find?

Not wanting to take the path of a 'slippery slope' fallacy, it's actually rather hard to get my point across without mentioning the Nazis.

TISO: I edited your post on the previous page to not show the images directly. This is to prevent children and sensitive people from stumbling upon them. The links are intact though; the images can now be viewed by those who choose to.

 

lets face facts here

we all agree that atrocities are bad things that should never happen, no problem there. now we have to face facts in the real world. as long as we have boots in the mud wars and people willing to hide behind civilians and use "unsporting tactics" we will continue to have them. some will because of mistakes, some will be "staged", that is civilians will be put in harm's way intentionally hoping that an "atrocity" will happen, and some will be the result of tired, scared grunts overreacting to combat conditions. any combat vet that's willing to be honest will tell you that anything that will save the lives of himself and his buddies is fair and good and anything that threatens them is bad. in combat the difference between good an bad has to be decided very fast and mistakes will happen. it becomes us against them and as long as us comes out alive and them doesn't its OK. atrocities are like cancer, hunger, sickness, homelessness, crime, and poverty. we all wish they didn't exist but in spite of our wishes they do exist and always will. the best we can do is to try to limit the numbers and the resulting damage. humans are after all humans and one thing we do very well is screw up. to be aware of this and to understand the reasons for helps us lessen the numbers because we can then try to come up with ways to reduce them. its also very difficult to judge the actions of the man in the fire so we often seem to overlook some actions he takes. since we as a group place the man in the fire we share in his actions both good and bad. his crimes become ours and that's why sometimes we refuse to punish them as harshly as perhaps they require. things that happen in war will always happen and there's very little we can do about as long as we have wars. to expect else is to live in a dream state.

a side note here- i do not know how many true combat vets we have here but i suspect they are minor %age. i am not one myself but i have talked with many from several wars and from different sides and some have opened up to me more that i expected. my experence is in other life threatning exoerences [ fire, EMS, and high angle rescue] so i have some idea of actions taken under high stress and know just how tough it is to talk with those who just don't understand. we have had to do things that nobody should ever have to do and have seen things better not seen.

 

haditha looks like an accident ..mia lai was an atrocity ..when those huge photo spreads appeared in life magazine i was 14 , my dad had just returned from his tour of duty in v nam ..people who called us troops baby killers were all wet , and wrong... ..we are the good guys ...when the storie broke ..i felt betrayed , personally ..somehow...i always felt lt.calli or SOMEONE needed to hang ..the whole thing was a disgrace..it still makes me ill...casually murdering civillians is never o.k.

 

Re: lets face facts here

I strongly disagree with this. Atrocities of war are not like diseases. They are always the result of conscious decisions by men, no matter what circumstances those men find themselves in. I agree that atrocities are very common and that their occurance is not always surprising, but they are not normal or relative, like poverty and homelessness, and they do not occur independently from human decisions, like cancer.

Also I don't think society as a whole carries any blame for atrocities committed by its soldiers especially if a large section of society opposes the war as a whole and would have taken those men out of the action if they had a say in it. Society may have sent men to war but it does not create the conditions under which men commit atrocities, simply because not every war has its atrocities - there's no rule that inevitably connects the two.

 

Not ot excuse any US actions, but how many VC or NVA were tried for atrocities against civilians?

 

arguing semantics instead of the real world

roel - war itself creates atrocities, every war has its atrocities. you can say that cancer is different but how many cancers are caused by human action? many , many if not most. some by lack of action like not wearing sunscreen others by actions like smoking. but that was not why i used that example. atrocities are bred by war, bred by the actions of men either pushed past normal behavour or by men whos dark sides are freed by the conditions found in war. very few of the men and women that manned the death camps were truely evil, instead they were men and women doing what they had been conditioned to belive was their duty. atrocities are just as much of the human condition as everything i listed. some happen one off in a dark alley while others happen wholesale, committed by otherwise good men that have been placed under stresses beyond their ability to handle or have had their dark sides freed by those same conditions. the twin drivers of fear and duty are taskmasters that often combine to cause outcomes that we call atrocities.
in the end is there any difference between 100 dead in a village in viet nam and 100 dead murdered 1 at a time in south central LA or 100 dead due to a misplaced bomb or an unluckly crossfire or 100 dead from cancer or hunger or AIDS? are those killed in an atrocity to be more valued and thus a greater loss than any other 100 that died from mors common causes? you cannot really expect to have war without atrocities. it has never happened and it never will in spite of our best efforts or wishes.

 

yes ...theres a big difference between a hundred deaths from cancer or drunk drivers and a hundred unarmed huddled women and children shot point blank on a dirt road...one is an attrocity ,the other is not...

 

Re: arguing semantics instead of the real world

Like I said, it's a matter of conscious choice. It's different to start smoking because you think it's cool or relaxing and accepting the consequence of an increased chance of getting cancer - that only applies to yourself. That is definitely not the same as physically pulling the trigger of a gun you're holding to the head of an unconscious woman you have just raped.

I don't think you can compare "normal" crime to atrocities in wartime either. The conditions are far from equal. If you're willing to support the argument that crime is triggered by the same causes as atrocities in war, then you must reject the idea that the conditions created by war, driving men to extremes, are extraordinary.

 

Correct and one is performed with intent the other happens despite our best efforts to prevent it. I do not subscribe to the view that there is no such thing as individual responsibility because these things just happen and are beyond our control. Those who make the decision to kill non combatants deliberately (not unintentionally as in collateral damage) must be held accountable for those decisions.

 

Somebody say that u cant blame US for that,u shoud blame soldiers who done the killings.It is just wrong,there is command responsability for ur troops action,and US army allways cower-up their actions,and they try 2 convince all countryes ower the world that they sign that american soldiers cant be judged on international courts of law using all kainds off blackmails (no financial help,no political support,etc).Why they shoud be diferent from ny otther country?And explanation for mui-lai was that many soldiers died by NV and they suspected that ppl from vilages help them,shure they do that,US ocupated their country.It is natural that natives help gerila in situations like that.

 

The man most responsible was eventually tried, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. This was belatedly done but it was done and by his own people. How many Serb war criminals have been convicted and sentenced by Serbian authorities?

That isn't blackmail it is foreign policy. The US government can provide financial support or withhold it and it is nobody else's business. Any country can claim international authority and bring all kinds of frivolous and nonsensical actions (such as war crimes charges in Germany against the US Sec'y of Defense). The US isn't going to allow it's foreign policy to be dictated by every little country that has access to the international courts.

I don't know that that was the explanation. Some of the men responsible may have made that claim as a way to try and excuse their actions.
As far as I'm concerned (and many other Americans) those proven responsible for war crimes should be punished. Unfortunately sometimes the legal system frustrates justice rather than accomplishing it.

 

Actualy,ower 30 serbs r convicted/in process for war crimes in serbia.Whole political staff is in Hagg for command respondibility.Every major general was charged on same base.So ur wrong,who done the killings he pay the price.I dont hawe anything 2 say in their defense,but only 1 thing i will.They killed soldier prisoners,newer wommans and chieldrens(that is crime allso,but not like this one..).Actualy ex SFRJ war was bloodbath with all 3 sides,fucking ciwil war and i never undestud why in first place he begun,but i seriusly suspect on foreign influence there. (Yugoslavia was one top EU contryes with standard,army,economy,and shure only country where communism worked betther then a capitalism)

 

What is the basis for this claim? What would or did foreign nations have to gain by instigating a civil war?

Sorry but I really cannot see this one at all.

 

one last try

one last time here. yes atrocities happen because of bad choices by the troops or leaders. no problems there. what seems to missing is an understanding of how those choices are made. many are the result of what is most likely legal temporary insanity. combat can drive you crazy, literally. call it blood lust, shell shock, PTSS, or any other name its still the same. combat drives a certain % of people crazy enough to make them do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. sure there atrocities that are planned and carried out in cold blood and these have to be punished severly. others happen in the heat of the moment and are not the work of rational minds. My Lai was one of the latter. men pushed over the edge by forces they cannot resist. you cannot judge the actions of an insane mind by normal standards nor should expect one to conform to the accepted norms. the restraints are off and reason has fled. in combat the normal standards are largely gone anyway and the hold of what is left of them is slippery. there are no supermen in the trenches, just scared guys that are trying to see another sunrise. constant fear and stress can drive anybody over the edge. its just that some are closer to the edge that others with different trip points. it must be nice to smugly assume that there is no excuse for whatever actions you deem an atrocity. wake up, climb down from your mountain top and smell the blood and guts that those you comdemn lived in.

 

future reference Wikipedia isn't a good source to be using.

 

Strong communist country,where is standard higher,social politic is perfect (scolls,hospitals,universitates,for free,ur employer cant fire u,for no reason) So just u see how is that counter to US "communism is bad",it is not bad,but i can be used for totalitery systems,and then is bad.Dont get me wrong,but CIA done it allways,if u wanna 2 win best way is divide and conquer.Il just give u 1 infn 1989,Yugoslavian export in arms was 2.4B USD,it was 3-rd after USA and SSSR.What u think why is war in Iraq? US learned in WWII that wars boost they economy,and they fight all ower the world 2 protect there interest,oil,any otther kaind.Here is just 1 exsample-who controll Panama canal?

 

Being from ex YU (Slovenia) myself i belive that US reconsidered in early 1991 (when they concluded that they can't stop it) and shifted support for break up and contributed consideratly to the problems in Kosovo.
I also belive that certain EU countries hepled initialy in break up but when thing got their own momentum they ran out of control. Let's face it, we could part our ways pecefuly but for couple of idiots on all sides.

Sinnisa watch out, now you'll be branded tin foil conspiracy theorist ( welcome to the club :smok: ) for your views on Iraq.

 

Vague, unsubstantiated charges with no basis in fact and little if any in logic or commonsense. It is comments like this that poisons the well of intelligent discourse and makes it impossible to have a decent debate.
Please return to facts and leave lala land.
ps.. the Panamanians control the Panama Canal last I heard.

 

Yep u pretty much right,and u know what was heapened here betther then any foregners who just sow what news say.