http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html

I did a search for "marine stories" because I was looking for information and opinions from marines in Iraq, since I am interested in joining. This piqued my interest. I have several questions though.

1) Is it customary for there to be an accepted amount of uneccessary civilian killings? What I mean is- is it customary for civilian lives to be held in little value, or is this a relatively new trend? Also,

2) In regards to depleted uranium- does it have that much affect as told? Is it discussed at all? Is there awareness about any (percieved) problem?

I am in no way deterred by this from joining the armed forces, of course, but since this article deals with the political aspects of war, meaning human rights and such, I wondered what educated, experienced people thought. Which is you guys.

Thanks.

In response, you first need to identify what an accepted amount of casualties the civilian populace would incur in a war. There is no such regard for civilians on the battlefield as invalid targets. They are merely not identified as a threat at the moment. There is not a definitive line in assymetric warfare of who is a good guy and who is a bad guy in the civilian populace, who is Fedayeen, Madhi Army, or just average local terrorist. This is not anything new. Civilians were raped, murdered, tortured, beaten, in every single conflict in the history of the world. We human beings are capable of terrible things under the guise of war. Civilians mean very little to the military in any regard, we fight and die, whilst they sit back and watch wars on TV and spout their political buzzwords.

Depleted Uranium? What of it? Vague question.
Are you asking in regards to radioactivity? No, unless it was fired through a hard target and slagged, there is virtually no radioactivity. There were extremely rare cases in the entire conflict thus far in which APFSDS-T was fired. So DU is not a factor. DoD mandated with Dept. of State we turn in DU ammo during OIF I no later than DEC 31, 03.

Human Rights on the other hand, most of us believe in. Me, on the other hand, if you attempt to kill me or my fellow soldiers, I do not believe in giving terrorists, or enemy personnel any quarter or mercy. Up to 5 minutes before they became "illegal combatants" or whatever you want to categorize them as, they were trying to kill me. In no uncertain terms, they should "vanish" in the desert after a thorough round of tactical questioning.

Well yeah I was kinda in the dark about the whole DU reference, and I needed clarification. So thank you.

And as for the misgivings of war, I understand, I was just wondering what type of effort is made to distinguish, if and when that's possible.

Again, I'm the one feeling in the dark with the toe of my boot. You're the one with the flashlight.

Ha ha, thanks.

quote:

1) Is it customary for there to be an accepted amount of uneccessary civilian killings? What I mean is- is it customary for civilian lives to be held in little value, or is this a relatively new trend?

New trend? Read some history. WWII had thousands...hundreds of thousands more civilian casualties than any recent conflict. The Rape of Nanking, Dresden firebombings...Nagasaki, Hiroshima? In this age of instant news it SEEMS that there are "hundreds" of incidents, when really there are very few in historical context. Many of these instances are false reports, but with instant news, they still go out. Others grab the headlines for weeks-- but it's still the single incident being reported on. That, and I do have to say reporters are "looking for it" more than ever to get their 15 minutes.

Unfired depleted uranium munitions are encased in thin metal jackets that seal in alpha and beta particles, and allow only extremely slight gamma emissions which fall well below regulatory health and safety limits. Similarly, depleted uranium panels used in tank armor pose no health risk because the depleted uranium is sealed inside several inches of regular steel armor. Alpha radiation, which is the major concern for internalized depleted uranium, is not an external concern because alpha radiation does not penetrate the outer layers of skin. The second source of radiation is from the depleted uranium rounds stored on board the tank. While soldiers are exposed to an increased level of radiation from the stored munitions, the cumulative exposure levels for tank crewmembers are within applicable guidelines. Since depleted uranium munitions are only used in combat, only forward-deployed vehicles are routinely uploaded with depleted uranium munitions.

The most frequently cited example of radiation exposure is holding a bare penetrator rod, which is impossible as long as the rounds are intact. The penetrator rods in the 120mm, 105mm and 30mm rounds are shielded which prevents direct contact with the actual penetrator rod. But even when holding a bare penetrator rod, an individual could hold the rod for 250 hours before reaching the extremity or skin limit of 50 rem.

quote:

Originally posted by patoloco:

quote:

1) Is it customary for there to be an accepted amount of uneccessary civilian killings? What I mean is- is it customary for civilian lives to be held in little value, or is this a relatively new trend?

New trend? Read some history. WWII had thousands...hundreds of thousands more civilian casualties than any recent conflict. The Rape of Nanking, Dresden firebombings...Nagasaki, Hiroshima? In this age of instant news it SEEMS that there are "hundreds" of incidents, when really there are very few in historical context. Many of these instances are false reports, but with instant news, they still go out. Others grab the headlines for weeks-- but it's still the single incident being reported on. That, and I do have to say reporters are "looking for it" more than ever to get their 15 minutes.

There are that many reporeted casualties caused by the war in Iraq, though. 50,000 I believe is the common conservative estimate.

I take it back, it's not hundreds of thousands, it's MILLIONS:

WWI estimated casualties: 6.6 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

WWII estimated casualties: 55 million
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm

Korean War estimated civilian deaths: 2-3 million
http://www.calvin.edu/news/releases/2001_02/korea.htm

Vietnam War estimated casualties (1965-1970): 1.1 million, over 320,000 killed
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10586

Gulf War estmated civilian deaths was 1,200- in 7 months of combat....and this is without the large scale infighting among the civilian populace that is occurring now (which is being added to those casualties in the current Iraq War). I guess you could say that Saddam Hussein at least did one thing right, crushing civilian uprisings before they got to wholesale murder as they are now.

There are also a few articles about the myth of civilian casualty rates being so much higher than they were in previous conflicts-- it is a much less violent world out there than in previous eras.

They used to kill all of the fighting men and whoever else they were in the mood and then enslave the rest. The four horsemen used to be busy.

quote:

Originally posted by HarryP:
They used to kill all of the fighting men and whoever else they were in the mood and then enslave the rest. The four horsemen used to be busy.

Medieval total war? Yes, I'm glad that's not the policy any longer.

Sorry about the incorrect word usage -- I feel so cheap.

What price? FREEDOM!!!

quote:

Originally posted by strobelvets:
What price? FREEDOM!!!

Are you sane?

Perhaps not according to your standards...specify yours Sir???

Are you an American?

My standards for sanity would be rather high.

To answer your question, no, I am not American. That would explain the difference in opinion on sanity between us.

Maybe not.

Nobodies perfect Harry...

Hmm, I seem to have a problem of mis-stating myself.

I was referring to the marked difference in cultural opinion between people of American descent and people of British descent (I would be of the latter).

My MIL hailed from Newbury, England...we had debates also...but at the end of the day...disagreed means...not ends...