Rather poor judgment (2 Viewers)

[Buster]

I also think that its very easy for us at home on our pc's to say they should do this and they shouldn't do that, but its a ' Walk a mile in my shoes ' scenario, when soldiers cross the line as some call it we have no idea at all about their circumstances or events.Acts like this should not be encouraged and should be frowned upon, but I wouldn't want these soldiers punished, a severe dressiing down etc certainly. But their morale is just as vital as winning over the population, these are not Sunday school teachers but Soldiers, Soldiers do bad things sometimes. A rollocking and move on I say.{sm0}:salute::

Rob

Hear, hear! Well said Rob, and all this time here I was thinking you were just another handsome face in the London Show bar. ^&grin {bravo}}

B.

 

[Napoleon1er]

I agree with Rob: the acts should be prevented, denounced, but the soldiers should not be punished (well, too severely that is- a bit of PT/details never hurt anyone), only taught how to amend their behavior. On another note, while I know we can say should/shouldn't on our computers, etc..., one of the staff at my school is in Psy Ops, and I have done some training with him, and this kind of thing is their realm of expertise. SO hear it from them- a war like this is won with hearts and minds, not just bayonets.

 

[theBaron]

I also think that its very easy for us at home on our pc's to say they should do this and they shouldn't do that, but its a ' Walk a mile in my shoes ' scenario, when soldiers cross the line as some call it we have no idea at all about their circumstances or events.Acts like this should not be encouraged and should be frowned upon, but I wouldn't want these soldiers punished, a severe dressiing down etc certainly. But their morale is just as vital as winning over the population, these are not Sunday school teachers but Soldiers, Soldiers do bad things sometimes. A rollocking and move on I say.{sm0}:salute::

Rob

Rob, I agree that they shouldn't face severe punishment, but I disagree with the gist of your first statement. It's a step in the direction towards the "chicken hawk" argument that some use here in the States to shut down debate on military matters. Some of us can speak from direct experience in military matters, including combat, and others can't speak from that experience, but I think we can all still discuss those issues. Indeed, along with interest in toy soldiers, discussing military history is a bug chunk of what we do. We have to be careful, then, to discourage discussion on the basis of having no direct experience in a given subject. Otherwise, we couldn't talk about any period other than our own, and any lives but our own.

Having said that, I'll make full disclosure, I haven't served, but I think I'm still qualified to say that it's pretty poor judgment to use the SS-runes, or a symbol that so closely resembles the SS-runes, on a flag like this, let alone to have taken a picture of it. Maybe they were ignorant of its meaning, which, yes, would be a said commentary on their education, but I suspect they know its origins. I can even understand that there is admiration for the skill of the German army and the Waffen-SS. But that admiration has to be tempered with the acknowledgement of the evil that those institutions fostered and defended.

I agree with the earlier comment that said that someone really needs to look at who the unit's CO was, and how much he knew. Understood that young men in combat will be keyed up, but officers are supposed to show superior judgment.

And as for Kiss, and their deliberate choice to make their logo look like the runes, well, it was for shock value, wasn't it, and I'm not sure that it's a valid argument either way in this discussion.

In any case, I stand by my statement, it shows rather poor judgment.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

These guys don't seem think it's a big deal and some of them are Jewish.

Some young guys being bad ***. Nothing nefarious IMO. That said, probably not the smartest thing to take to take a picture in these days of hypersensitivity.

Frank has a point; Gene Simmons is Jewish and his mother survived the camps. Do you think he would do something like that if he was going to upset his mother, to whom he's very close.

 

[ROUGH RIDER]

Putting my two cents in. My youngest brother was a Marine scout Sniper he served everywhere and no where. That said these men young and old are there doing what no one else wants to or will do. That ss flag doesn't mean a **** thing unless you want it to. The USMC has a very special weapon its fear. I don't want them to be politically correct or sensitive to others feelings. I want them to do a job with every available means. Remember the gates to heaven are guarded by these men.

 

[theBaron]

Putting my two cents in. My youngest brother was a Marine scout Sniper he served everywhere and no where. That said these men young and old are there doing what no one else wants to or will do. That ss flag doesn't mean a **** thing unless you want it to. The USMC has a very special weapon its fear. I don't want them to be politically correct or sensitive to others feelings. I want them to do a job with every available means. Remember the gates to heaven are guarded by these men.

No one is saying that they aren't brave. But by your argument, they could hang out the Blutfahne and a picture of Hitler, and it doesn't mean anything. Sorry, it's still poor judgment.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Scott]

It's the United States Marines. That title is supposed to mean something over any other nation's elite forces pass and present. Just because there is all this "warrior" nonsense, CGI heroics in video games and corporate mercenaries today, I want the troops representing my country (and I'll wager that you Australians and UK folks do to) to represent it as civilized, modern, and having the the troops you want to see coming when you need the military, not mercenaries or frat boys playing badaazz with discredited symbols of tyranny. I didn't see anything like that Nazi stuff at the USMC Museum in Quantico or at the Sunset Parade in DC last summer.

 

[glossman]

......... History will show that an army that disrespects the dead (whether by urinating on them, or using symbols of past armies that committed atrocities) will face a hostile public wherever they go. Today a large part of warfare is psychological, and is about winning the public over to your side, especially in this case, where the enemy gets all of its troops from civilians who feel wronged by our forces. So it is really the duty of troops to help on this mission too. So in other words- I would preach forgiveness, but not and never tolerance for this kind of behavior.

Sandor,

Well said. You have grasped the core issue here. The nature of warfare has changed since WWII and Korea. The war in Afghanistan is essentially asymmetric. It is not enough to have accurate satellite intel, superior firepower with >3:1 ratio and good logistics when operating in Afghanistan. IMHO, the war in Afghanistan can only be won by a clear strategy of psychological warfare to win over the key groups of the civilian population.

Modern troops are highly trained in neutralizing the enemy without a doubt. However, there seems to be insufficient emphasis on psychological warfare for asymmetric wars. The battles have to be won at a psychological level, otherwise, you will not win the war. If this is not addressed, these engagements will be protracted with no clear victory.....only timelines for troop withdrawals.

Raymond.

 

[Napoleon1er]

I agree with Brad. We all know what power a symbol can hold. The eagle with the bolts. That summons up images of Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, as well as the US. Millions of men would die and kill for it. It is just an image. Remember folks, perception is reality. As a Jew, I perceive, at least at first, they are Nazi-inclined, and thus want to kill me. I don't want to live in a country were my military wants to kill me. Period. Forgive, but don't forget, because we need to learn these lessons.

 

[Saber]

While I certainly don't condone the picture in question and agree it shows poor judgement, calls for bringing charges against these soldiers seem a bit extreme. My guess is that any NCO's identified as well as any officer involved will pay a fairly steep price in terms of their future advancement and military career. It's a flag and a picture... not Lt. Calley and My Lai. It never ceases to amaze me that we as a society send young soldiers into life and death combat situations and then become shocked at every indiscrestion they commit. Even the "Good Guys" do dumb things in war. What would people think of the "Greatest Generation" today if every act of stupidity... be it trivial or atrocity... was brought to light by "you tube" videos and internet pictures? Would that war hero "Uncle Joe" or "Grandpa" be a cast as some kind of moral villain today?

The picture is unfortunate, especially on the heels of the previous embarrasment, but let's not forget we've been sending these soldiers to fight this war for approximately 10 years. Many of these troops have seen far more actual combat time than that WWII hero hanging on the wall... so maybe there's a bigger issue here we that we should be "outraged" about... just say'en...

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

These words are exactly the ones I use when we address certain issues from WWII and axis armies. How can we justify actions with excuses that are not allowed for our enemies but, can when its our own troops???? As you say, war does strange things to people who, would ordinarily not be capable of such things perhaps, we should all remember this when the next debates come up about what is considered a crime or a war crime or similar.

I think regardless of side these soldiers should be punished for some of the acts that have been mentioned and, I recall many comments where soldiers who are near and close to these acts but take no part should have stood up and said they are wrong. Both you and Louis have stated this argument many many times. We are allowing what we castigate other nations for doing in wartime to be done by our own troops. Thats double standards because we think rightly or wrongly, we are right and, they are wrong.

If its wrong for one side its wrong for our side. The soundbites and support for our troops are admirable but, we are supposed to be fighting against this type of behaviour. Just using one example imagine the enemy urinating on our dead troops there would be outrage and, calls for severe retaliation.

The saying goes whats good for the goose is good for the gander!!!!
Mitch

I also think that its very easy for us at home on our pc's to say they should do this and they shouldn't do that, but its a ' Walk a mile in my shoes ' scenario, when soldiers cross the line as some call it we have no idea at all about their circumstances or events.Acts like this should not be encouraged and should be frowned upon, but I wouldn't want these soldiers punished, a severe dressiing down etc certainly. But their morale is just as vital as winning over the population, these are not Sunday school teachers but Soldiers, Soldiers do bad things sometimes. A rollocking and move on I say.{sm0}:salute::

Rob

 

[Rob]

Mitch, your argument can of course be turned on its head. You yourself have often tried to understand true War crimes and not condemn them outright because we do not understand the indoctrinated mindest of those involved , but yet you pounce upon an act that whilst offensive and unpleasant do not compare in anyway to such as Malmedy, Oradour etc etc etc, I think most folk on here would not put these events in the same bracket. The troops urinated on dead soldiers, they did not round up their families put them in a church and then throw in hand grenades etc.

Perhaps we are all guilty of double standards without knowing it sometimes.On the one hand you appear to call for punishment of US troops for the urinating on the dead, but understanding of the mindset of a Focker Wolf pilot who with deliberate purpose machine gunned school children in London. I personally do try not to make these discussions personal by mentioning names if poss, it only gets things heated, you obviously have an issue with things myself and Louis have said in the past and that is fine, but there is normally one way a thread will go after that, and I 've had a stomach full of it of late and am now really enjoying the forum again, so this is where I'll leave this thread.

To the other guys in the thread, my point is in the grand scheme of things I do not beilieve the US Troops serving us with such distinction out there deserve anything more than a dressing down .

Cheers to all

Rob

Rob...

These words are exactly the ones I use when we address certain issues from WWII and axis armies. How can we justify actions with excuses that are not allowed for our enemies but, can when its our own troops???? As you say, war does strange things to people who, would ordinarily not be capable of such things perhaps, we should all remember this when the next debates come up about what is considered a crime or a war crime or similar.

I think regardless of side these soldiers should be punished for some of the acts that have been mentioned and, I recall many comments where soldiers who are near and close to these acts but take no part should have stood up and said they are wrong. Both you and Louis have stated this argument many many times. We are allowing what we castigate other nations for doing in wartime to be done by our own troops. Thats double standards because we think rightly or wrongly, we are right and, they are wrong.

If its wrong for one side its wrong for our side. The soundbites and support for our troops are admirable but, we are supposed to be fighting against this type of behaviour. Just using one example imagine the enemy urinating on our dead troops there would be outrage and, calls for severe retaliation.

The saying goes whats good for the goose is good for the gander!!!!
Mitch

 

[Mitch]

Rob...

I can't really see the reaction you have taken. I also, think you should stop the self removal from threads. This is a debate with differing opinions and, we are mature enough to be able to mention posters who we have had differing opinions with and, to respond with differing facts and positions.

I would like to say that I did not defend the Fock wulf pilot as you well know I merely stated that, after reading many accounts of pilots from allied and axis sides and, talking with family and, other pilots that, when they were in the air they were overcome almost with the power etc they had. Many allied pilots shot up civillains on the german and japanese side. Thats what I said when I mentioned I could see why they did what they did.

To you urinating on dead bodies may be trivial and, is it worse than the Malmedy massacre or, Oradour?? many would say yes but, thats not the point. We are fighting an enemy we are supposed to despise for what they stand for and, that we are better than and, to bring their people free from their tyranny. Thats a hard thing to do when you do these acts. Urinating on dead bodies causes grteat outrage in that area and, does little to bring acceptance to our troops. In fact, it would only increase the hatred of them and, in turn cause further deaths.

The problem is the allied oratory for being at war. It always states in one form or another the morality and superiority of their response and actions whilst negating the enemy. Thats fine, and, part propaganda and part reality but, with that comes responsibility for ensuring that we have clean hands. We know of the acts that the allies did in WWII and, in the recent combat zones and, whilst I understand why they are done and how they can be undertaken, as, I can with axis forces, we, should IMO come down harder on those acts which contravene hugely the morality behind our reasons for being there.

There are no double standards from me about these issues just a belief that if we adopt a higher moral position to our enemy then we should uphold that even more strictly when it goes wrong. We all know what the axis and our enemies did but, its not wrong to mention either what the allies did wrong in equally large numbers or, that they should be punished for them.

The difference with the original thread and the flag is that the SS runes does not offend the enemy only our own side or, some the urinating on dead bodies etc offends everyone especially, the enemy
Mitch

 

[Scott]

".....The picture is unfortunate, especially on the heels of the previous embarrasment, but let's not forget we've been sending these soldiers to fight this war for approximately 10 years. Many of these troops have seen far more actual combat time than that WWII hero hanging on the wall... so maybe there's a bigger issue here we that we should be "outraged" about... just say'en... .."



Saber you defiantly have a point there. My father was already in the National Guard in 1940 and was wounded and home by the end of 1944, a shorter time than this "war" has been going on. Possibly shorter than some troops who have served recently. I worked at a place where a co worker's son joined the N.G. when I started there and was on his way to a third deployment in Afghanistan went I left after 6 years.

At a memorial service I went to yesterday for a WW II veteran, it was remarked that the WW II vets were the people that took charge and got things done in the community. I was born in 1952 and though I didn't know it at the time I can look back and see that this was true especially of my own parents.


I hope these modern service people can fit back into society. It would be too bad if as 'hammers" all problems looked like "nails" to them in civilian life.

 

[Scott]

Punishment? Heck no! A little education is in order. These are elite troops with all that entails.

 

[Saber]

I hope these modern service people can fit back into society. It would be too bad if as 'hammers" all problems looked like "nails" to them in civilian life.

The book "On Killing" is a good place for anyone to start to understand what war does not only to the individual but society as a whole. If people, and I'm talking all people here not good guys vs. bad guys, got more "outraged" at the stupidity of the ideology... religion... politics... that led countries into these devasting wars the world would be a great deal better. There's a reason vets suffer from PTSD, high divorce rates, suicide, depression... the list goes on... and unless you're a comabt vet or have one in your immediate family it's hard to truly understand what happens to the psyche of the soldiers we send off to do our the dirty work. The reality is no matter what one does in war, good or bad, there can be horrific consequenses. These soldiers could just as well built a school house to win those "hearts and minds" only to see the village elders shot or the teachers executed for fraternizing with the Great Satan. That's why war is so god aweful... it rips at the souls of those who carry it out for the "good guys" as well as the "bad guys".

 

[Fusilier]

The book "On Killing" is a good place for anyone to start to understand what war does not only to the individual but society as a whole.

I would agree, Lt. Col. Grossman's book does provide a lot of fascinating insight. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at a law enforcement conference a couple of years ago and he was great to listen to. Personally, I don't like the weight he places on SLA Marshall's ideas of the percentage of soldiers who actively fire their weapons, but that is a small issue. Overall, On Killing is a very worthwhile read.

Noah

 

[Phil]

It would seem that beauty isnt the only thing in the eye of the beholder, Gene and the other members of KISS obviously didnt have an issue with the SS runes (nor did the millions of fans the band had and still has) similarly no one on this site seemed to have a problem with the recently posted "gastapo" dio of a beaten prisioner being handed over to a German officer (which i thought was very well put together). There where several comments on the use of a later model VW beetle and none re the theme of the dio itself...probably because in all 3 cases the participents understood the context of the symbology where as those not part of this forum or those not in the photo or those not fans of the band will interpret it in there own way based on their own experiences and beliefs.....context is everything.

 

[Scott]

The context of KISS, representing music, is that they don't actually kill people but a USMC sniper unit, representing the US of A, does kill people.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

There is a big difference between individuals or small groups committing atrocities on their own and a large component of an army like the SS doing atrocities as a matter of policy. The SS symbol is of a group whose policy of committing atrocities was not only condoned but rewarded. This is how the debates about double standards gets so tangled. Atrocities or indiscretions by US or Canadian troops are the actions of individuals or small groups and are not the way we operate. But any atrocities committed against us are not the acts of individuals or small groups but are the policy or customs of the enemy in it's entirety. That's the same way the Afghans or Irquis see us from their point of view.

That's how a double standard gets created,

Terry