I would tend to agree. However, I am not a soldier in Iraq. I would even tender the guess that I, along with many here, have no idea what it is really like for a soldier in Iraq. I can make no assumptions as to the limits of their discretion with use of force or thier justifications.

Are there intances where it is appropriate for our forces to use force in a situation where a US police officer would not? Of course. The military is not a police force. It can't be used as such. And we must remember that our military forces in Iraq are not in the Same situations that a police officer would face in America. It's totally different over there, I would expect them not to use the same basic tactics as US police.

The difference, I feel, between an American Soldier and our enemies is our honor on the battle feild. If we lose that, we are no different than our enemies.

Hopefully, what ever the cirmcustances or action taken, our boys and girls across the pond will do the right thing whenever they can.

True, Police don't face the same situation, if they did, i think they just call in a trained anti terrorist squad sorrect? And would they deal with the suspected highly dangerous terrorists in America, in the same way as soldiers in Iraq?

Exactly. In the US, the main goal with dealing with potential terrorists is judicial in nature. We want to arrest them so they may stand trial. They are criminals. In Iraq, a potential terrorist is now an enemy and would be killed.

Somehow i do not think the anti terrorist squad would be much enclined to risk their lives too much to arrest an armed terrorist, same in Iraq.

If the terrorist appears unarmed, then yes they would probably be in more danger in Iraq than America, but only because the anti terrorist squad would have superior training in dealing with terrorists than the average soldier in Iraq, not because of what country they are in.

agreed of course, but i don't think you can hold the rank and file completely accountable when their command is so poor. just take Abu Ghraib as a perfect example. it's deplorable in ways westerners don't even readily understand. i can accept that it's difficult to coordinate an invasion and "mistakes happen", but the very occurance of this kind of behavior speaks to wretchedly poor oversight at the highest levels, not to mention a Kubrick-esque example of what training (purposeful socialization) can do to the humanity of soldiers under duress.

I think a lot of you are confusing terrorists and insurgents. Insurgents attack military targets; terrorists attack indiscriminately.

Yes i am confused,, and i will probably remain confused unless one day i convert to Islam and pick up a gun against America/other Islamic sects, so yea, until then, the terrorists/insurgent will continue to confuse me!

I don't think you are correct. I am pretty sure insurgents and terrorists both attack whatever targets they think will get the most attention to their cause. Insurgent movements are not characterized by an unwillingness to attack civilians they are charactarized by their opposition to a government establishment they feel is illegitimate and the tactics they use including raids kidnapping bombings shootings etc. to disable or harrass the infrastructure of the current goverment such as the new Iraq government. Insurgent movements are usually willing to use terror tactics or any other means to achieve their goals which is historically overthrowing the "illegitimate" government. They are also characterized as being weaker than the military might of the government they oppose thus they use such tactics to make up for it. Historically insurgent can be used as a term to describe all sorts of resistance fighters and revolutionaries or terrorists depending on whether they won and wrote the history book or lost. I am sure if the US had lost the revolutionary war many of our biggest heroes would be traitors and terrorist and the Continental Army would be classified insurgents instead of resistance fighters especially due to some of the then unconventional guerrilla tactics used. Point I am trying to make is that using terror tactics is not neccessarily for or against the idea of being an insurgent. The term has become too popular and therefore totally misunderstood by just about everyone. Terrorism on the other hand is pretty well understood. I would say that 9/11 was obviously terrorism because it used terror tactics to promote its cause but not insurgency because foreign agents cannot logically make a plea as to the legitimacy of that government. In Iraq however I think the insurgency which believes it is more legitimate than the new government is often but not always terroristic in nature because once in a while they don't kill any civilians. Hope that either cleared up the semantics or at least proved how irrelevant they are.

Not Quite true. In America, they would be captured to stand trial, if possible. That is the goal. Take the recent JFK plot. Those men will stand trail. The goal wasn't to kill them, but to arrest them. Sometimes people will resist arrest and force (even deadly in specific circumstances) will be needed. That's why american police have negotiation teams, and non-leathal weapons. The intent is never to kill. That level of force is only reserved for the most dire of situations and when all other options have failed or are no longer available.

But the Key with american policing is to use the least amount of force necesarry to ensure public peace. With the military, the key is to eliminate the enemy using whatever force is needed to accomplish that goal.

At the moment the troops in Iraq are following the 'use the least amount of force necissary' routine,,, but they are not as well trained to do that as the police, so in consideration of that fact, i think they are doing a fantastic job!

they should have sent the LAPD

lol,

Hey do you think things would be different in Iraq if soldiers there had as good a training in dealing with people as police? I'm just wondering?

it might not even be training so much as hands-on experience. think about it. the average soldier doesn't go to war all that often, and doesn't spend years on the field. my two ex-roommates who were marines both went to Iraq when this all first started, and both came back in six months or so (one was redeployed inside another 3 months tho). police deal with the crime on the streets every day. they're much more likley to find themselves in life-threatening situations, presumably they'd have a better time keeping cool in such a situation.

so to answer your question, would things be different? undoubtably. would that be a meaningful difference? hell if i know, but i suspect it could be. but i don't think it just boils down to training; cops receive a lot of high-minded training (cultural sensitivity, women's issues, etc.), but they'll be the first to tell you it all goes out the door when they've got a gun pointed at them.

good answer!

why thank you

np  

I have another question... I was wondering about if the majority of people in Afghanistan support the government set up there by America? Also did the majority support the government which was set up by Russia before it fell to the Taliban?

What is the difference anyway between a government set up by Russia and one set up by America?

I remember how pleased everyone was when the old russian set up government finally fell to the Taliban. Now the Russians must be pissing their pants laughing at America in Afghanistan today!

the difference is,
IIs it not important to "help" the counrty you invade
If not then why


Mystic, you ask a question, I ask one back, "do you know what its like in Afghnaistan"?

If not then you have , no right to ask those questions.

I could never understand what it means to be under that threat,
I could never know what I would do in those circumstances,
but most in the west seem to think they know,
shame on us

Marcus

PS If only we were under threat of occupation and bombing , we could have a better issight.

But nobody really bombs us, we go on, we have our dead and still we go on.


Bombs don't scare me. why do they scare you?

Huh? that's just plain dumb. who are you to hand out judgements on who has the right to ask what?

I'm not judging anyone, I was just asking,
All I did was ask about you, and maybe your thoughts on a matter.

Thats all mystic,

I would like to hear your comments. but if not then I'm good also,

Take care Mystic. all my thoughts.

Marcus

I do not have any particular thoughts, i was just asking a question out of curiosity about the situation i brought up?

Mystic, I almost understand your arguments,
But maybe you have no argument worth debating

I know I don't regard you as a thinker, but you do have a certain gravitas,

Marcus

You have a very different way of thinking, it is mostly confusing but sometimes intriguing.

Usually if you comment on one of my posts, the first reaction from me is that i will scratch my head and wonder how the hell you came to say whatever it was you said based on my post??? because the ideas you derive from my posts are so distant and apart from my intended message or idea.

Very true, but in different ways. There is a reaction system called PEDA. Perceive, evaluate, Decide, Act. Essentially its takes time to react to a situation. From a tactical perspective, If you are constantly reacting to threats then you are behind in terms of force. Soldiers and police can't do that. If a man came up to a soldier/police officer with a gun, he could raise that weapon and get 1 shot off before we could get our weapons up and return fire. It's not a matter of speed or training, just reaction time. We can't follow that logic. Soldiers need to be able to shoot first because if they are reacting, they are dead.

For soldiers, when they face a threat, its almost only deadly. Getting shot at, bombed, etc. Police will find themselves in threatening situations, but not always deadly. People will want to fight us, kick out out cruiser's windows, run from us, and sometimes kill us. Police have more options to deal with different threat levels. Soldier only need one to remove an enemy threat.

A reasonable argument, although i am sure soldiers have to deal with all manner of non life threatening situations as do police.... it is the fact that terrorists try to disguise themselves in non threatening situations that is the big problem for soldiers.

Your a police officer?