murder or justification in the war?

[The Jekyll]

Having been there, three wars, 3 1/2 years in combat missions (Infantry Ranger), here is my take:

Violation of the Laws of War: Yes
Justified : Yes
Morally correct : No
Would I have done it: Probably not (wasn't there can't be 100%)
Situationally correct: No. The intel that may have been gained through interrogation may have saved the lives of many more American soldiers than the sniper ever could have taken. These men in WWII were Brigade or Division assets with enormous intell that could have tremendous impact for our side.

The laws of war state that when a soldier is no longer a combatant they are to be captured; that is the law. The Laws of War state that a surrendering soldier is no longer a combatant; that is the law.

Reality is, surrendering soldiers were used as means by the surrendering side to kill our soldiers. (that doesn't appear to be the case here given the stated circumstances). Fear often overrides our moral rational.

Just my take, worth what you paid for it.

[M1A1]

16 months straight?  Ouch.  I've heard that after six months you start to go crazy, is that true?  However, there is a balance between letting US soldiers shooting anything that moves and completely neutering combat effectiveness.  If we treat the Iraquis and Afghanistanis the same way the Taliban do- we may as well be the Taliban.

It's a battle for hearts, minds and infrastructure (schools, running water, electricity), and the strategy of "Grab them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" failed miserably in Vietnam.  Look at the Long March, the retreating troops did not steal, rape or pillage (or at least did so far, far less).  They were loved (in comparision to the previous Goumindang).

Think of it this way- you live in the Bronx.  There is a gang (corresponding to the Taliban), and the police (corresponding to US forces).  The gang steals, kills or maims anyone who gets in their way- but they get brownie points for being the home team.  If the police do the same thing, only using modern weapons, the gang will be supported far more than the police.  It's a simple question of survival.

However, I can't imagine what it must be like to be pinned down for hours, even days by just one guy with a rifle.  Seeing bullets whiz through your buddies, hearing the screams by the medic's or corpsman's tent.  It must change your thought process quite a bit. 

-Penguin

Well I can say this much the hearts and minds bull that came during Vietnam was because the politicans got in involved. War is no place to win hearts and minds it is for forcing your opponents into seeing your point of view by means of force. You do not train and equip an army to go to war to hand out blankets food and kiss the enemy and make them feel good. You send the red cross to do that after the war is over. Do you really think we cared what the people of the Axis powers thought of us as we bombed them?? Nope not one bit. This political correctness you see on the battlefield is a modern phenomena . It is SO that folks can feel better about themselves and deal with the horror that is war and so you see  war is supposed to be hell for a reason ....

[Yossarian]

Well I can say this much the hearts and minds bull that came during Vietnam was because the politicans got in involved. War is no place to win hearts and minds it is for forcing your opponents into seeing your point of view by means of force. You do not train and equip an army to go to war to hand out blankets food and kiss the enemy and make them feel good. You send the red cross to do that after the war is over. Do you really think we cared what the people of the Axis powers thought of us as we bombed them?? Nope not one bit. This political correctness you see on the battlefield is a modern phenomena . It is SO that folks can feel better about themselves and deal with the horror that is war and so you see  war is supposed to be hell for a reason ....

I've always heard that the idea is to shoot the enemy, and win over the hearts and minds of the civilians, at least when dealing with an insurgency.

[gyrene81]

could you imagine a bunch of ap reporters with live satellite feed cameras on okinawa or saipan? i wonder what the public reaction would have been to see a platoon of marines "souvenir collecting" after a firefight on saipan? if that kind of thing were to happen today...damn near every marine that survived the battles would be court martialed just because some anti-war civilian twits cried about it on facebook...or blogged their congressmen.

[Yossarian]

could you imagine a bunch of ap reporters with live satellite feed cameras on okinawa or saipan? i wonder what the public reaction would have been to see a platoon of marines "souvenir collecting" after a firefight on saipan? if that kind of thing were to happen today...damn near every marine that survived the battles would be court martialed just because some anti-war civilian twits cried about it on facebook...or blogged their congressmen.

You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.

[E25280]

The US did have a sphere of influence in the Pacific- the Phillipines, the Hawaiian islands, various atolls, and Alaska to a lesser extent.  The US and Japan both wanted control of the world's largest body of water, and the Pacific war was therefore inevitable.

Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan, which gave the already militant regime in power all the more reason to lash out.  This did not justify the war, it merely encited greater hostility.  As for the nukes, they ended up saving more lives (on both sides) than would have been lost as a result of a D-Day style invasion of the mainland.  The radiation poisioning and cancer were their horrid consequences, however.

Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water.  It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.

"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"?     So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice?  You really are ignorant.

Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo.  They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings. 

There was nothing "inevitable" about it.  They brought it on themselves.

[Tyrannis]

Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water.  It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.

"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"?     So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice?  You really are ignorant.

Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo.  They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings. 

There was nothing "inevitable" about it.  They brought it on themselves.

have to control the waterways to reach the islands to retrieve said resources, so yes japan did give a "rats ass" about the water.

and no, he's not blaming America for it. he's saying that japan would of declared war on us wether pearl happened or not,due to America denying to export to them.They would of invaded American controlled islands to plunder the resources they needed.

this all goes back to the argument with ack, where we're trying to explain to ack that Pearl didnt have as much influence in the decision to nuke japan as ack thinks. but im afraid we may never excede  his ego is too thick for us to get through.

[gyrene81]

You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.

i wouldn't personally do it...and sitting here in my comfortable environmentally controlled house where i can eat, sleep and relax without anyone trying to kill me by whatever means they have at their disposal...i could say it's wrong...but i'm not going to because i know what battle trauma does to a persons psyche...i've seen it first hand and maybe 1 in 100 can handle it.

and i dare anyone in this discussion ready to pass judgment on the actions of a soldier in battle to go put themselves into the exact same conditions and see what they're made of...

[Penguin]

Japan didn't give a rats bellybutton about the water.  It needed the resources in the land the water surrounds.

"Not to mention the oil embargo on Japan"?     So you're saying it's all America's fault for pushing poor little Japan into it because they had no choice?  You really are ignorant.

Try learning a little bit about just what Japan was up to in the decade before the oil embargo.  They had plenty of opportunity and were given countless warnings to stop their aggression in China, and they refused to heed any of those warnings. 

There was nothing "inevitable" about it.  They brought it on themselves.

I didn't say that it pushed Japan into the war- reread my post, I said that it heightened tensions. 

You are correct on the water part- allow to rephrase, the body of water and the islands thereof.  Those islands were worth quite a bit (naval and air bases, tariffs on docking ships).  Trade routes are the life-blood of any industrial nation, and waterways are the most efficient way to go between continents.  Everyone wanted a slice (and still does want) of the pie.

-Penguin

[hlbly]

the sniper was surounded, and cut off from any chance of escape, it wasent like he could sit there, snipe a couple ppl. then run to the safety of his own army. he was trapped.

im guessing this fact was he reason why the soldiers gave the sniper a chance to surrender peacefully, but like i said. he shot the messenger right infront of the windmill.


now, at the time the messenger got shot, they most likely didnt know wether he was dead or alive at the time.


would you really want to start shelling that position when you had a shot messenger/friend who could possably of been alive so close to it?

He was a sniper . It would have been up to him to surrender . I find it highly improbable anyone was asked to approach a known sniper position , let alone unarmed . I say again . A enemy sniper whose position is known , would simply have been the victim of whatever ordinance was needed to kill him without risking an American life . The hard part about getting a sniper is fixing his position . Try to determine direction one of these days from a single report of a firecracker or whatever . Simply put , once a snipers position is known his life span is measured at best in minutes , usually seconds . What you may find interesting is some methods used to fix a snipers position . Glider troops had a method used in Normandy a field expedient , I find kind of unusual . They took armor off of gliders from the landings . Used a white horse and took turns riding in view of snipers daring them to take the shots . Results were needless to say uneven .

[hlbly]

i wouldn't personally do it...and sitting here in my comfortable environmentally controlled house where i can eat, sleep and relax without anyone trying to kill me by whatever means they have at their disposal...i could say it's wrong...but i'm not going to because i know what battle trauma does to a persons psyche...i've seen it first hand and maybe 1 in 100 can handle it.

and i dare anyone in this discussion ready to pass judgment on the actions of a soldier in battle to go put themselves into the exact same conditions and see what they're made of...

I usually find you a little pompous . I doubt we ever would have got along . I must give credit where credit is due though . You are spot on here . I think your ratio is a little low though , not alot but a little . Just my personal experience speaking though not a fact I would care to dispute  . Don't you find the whole scenario off though ? I don't know but would bet you have at the very least the training that tells you . Once a snipers position is known he has very , very , little time to surrender . No one would be asked/ordered to approach a known snipers position unarmed ? The thinking just doesn't work like that . If a green junior officer were to issue an order like that his NCO's would step in . A man asked would simply refuse . I had to add the last because I have seen 2nd Lt's dso some spit I would not believe had I not seen it . Cod save us from the ROTC

[RTR]

In answer to the original question...Yes it was murder.

By any standard of law, military or civilian, it was murder and should have been tried as such.

Geeze, I didn't even have to make this one up.

RTR

[gyrene81]

I usually find you a little pompous . I doubt we ever would have got along . I must give credit where credit is due though . You are spot on here . I think your ratio is a little low though , not alot but a little . Just my personal experience speaking though not a fact I would care to dispute  . Don't you find the whole scenario off though ? I don't know but would bet you have at the very least the training that tells you . Once a snipers position is known he has very , very , little time to surrender . No one would be asked/ordered to approach a known snipers position unarmed ? The thinking just doesn't work like that . If a green junior officer were to issue an order like that his NCO's would step in . A man asked would simply refuse . I had to add the last because I have seen 2nd Lt's dso some spit I would not believe had I not seen it . Cod save us from the ROTC

i'm very pompous hlbly...    in real life i'm just one of those people who doesn't walk around in the dark like the average person...and people who say stuff with their craniums planted firmly in their rectums get my best extraction effort...even if it pisses them off.

i probably am off a bit on the ratio...i served with and/or spoke with a large number of army, navy and marine front line combat vets from wwii, korea and vietnam since i was a kid...and the ones that have stuck out over the years are the few who could drink alcohol and share their experiences without their hands shaking or getting emotional...

i do agree that the op's scenario is a bit off...almost sounds like a scene from a movie like saving private ryan.

[ink]

i'm very pompous hlbly...    in real life i'm just one of those people who doesn't walk around in the dark like the average person...and people who say stuff with their craniums planted firmly in their rectums get my best extraction effort...even if it pisses them off.

i probably am off a bit on the ratio...i served with and/or spoke with a large number of army, navy and marine front line combat vets from wwii, korea and vietnam since i was a kid...and the ones that have stuck out over the years are the few who could drink alcohol and share their experiences without their hands shaking or getting emotional...

i do agree that the op's scenario is a bit off...almost sounds like a scene from a movie like saving private ryan.

I have a Tattoo of a guy with his head stuck up is own ass, I did it when I was 18 

[Yeager]

You sound as if you think there nothing at all wrong about doing that.

War is state sanctioned mass murder and you are all bunched about some shell shocked marines full of hate digging gold teeth out of dead japanese soldiers mouths?  Come on man.  What about the firebombing deaths of many hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, woman, the elderly, children, and infants in cities all across Europe, China and Japan?  Or the inhumane treatment of tens of millions of POWs at the hands of Japanese and German incarcerators?  There was so much barbarity and inhumanity during that war, as there is during any war in which millions of combatants wage total violence against one another.  This story about some sniper getting plowed under is of almost insignificant value in the grand scheme of things.

Lets be nice to each other.