Guilty of murder

rolf_f

pliptrot wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

How would you have prosecuted the war?

I certainly would not have executed soldiers in my own army for refusing to go "over the top" to certain death. I would have kept people in the trenches when machine guns were focused on them...in fact I would have expected nothing that I would not have done myself. Therein lies the problem.....Haig and the others in charge neither considered the casualty rate nor could identify with those on the front line. They genuinely believed the war could be won through attrition.

I'm sure none of us here would have done those things either. Partly because we aren't of that time and partly because we aren't of that character. We are a collection of people who post on bike forums. If Haig was alive today, he wouldn't be posting on bike forums; he'd probably be running a multinational corporation or something. You don't get to the top without a significant degree of ruthlessness. That is probably a pity as I don't really subscribe to the line that that is what you need to run an organisation effectively. However, it does seem to be the way of things. To what degree Haig could have done a better job is open to debate but whoever had been in charge would probably have made some of the same decisions. After all, if the diplomacy isn't happening and you are in a trench based stalemate, what do you do? Haig must have been under a lot of pressure to achieve results - so what does a man who, by definition, must have a huge ego do? Say that nothing can be done and resign to be replaced by someone else (which is what I'd have done!) or decide that it is a horrible mess but if someone has to deal with it, then he is the best man for the job?

ballysmate

People make the mistake of judging historical events in the context of today's world instead of the time frame concerned.
FFS I am sure there are people out there who wonder why they didn't organise a rock concert to help the victims or the potato famine in Ireland.

mamba80

I dont understand the Haig connection, a better analogy would be bush and blair, 2 world leaders that through deliberate lies and deceit have cost the lives of 1000s of US and UK service men and women and replaced a relatively stable dictatorship (Iraq) with a chaotic country where 100s of 1000s of people have died and will continue to die.
saddam and Bin laden were sworn enemies, now iraq is a hot bed of extremisim, supplying battle hardened veterans to Libya and Syria and anywhere else for that matter.
Not being content with this, they then set about Afganistan, butchering their way through the Taliban and any civilians that got in their way + of course adding to the death toll of their own citizens.
the 2 Bs actions, indirectly, have led to this marine being in this situation in the first place.

and what happened to these 2 men and their lackeys? absolutely nothing, infact they have gone on to even greater riches for their crimes.

Pross

Frank the tank wrote:

The part of my OP which has been totally overlooked was my reference to general Haig.

Marine A was found guilty of murdering one of his enemy. For my money Haig in effect murdered tens of, if not hundreds of thousands of British soldiers and never faced a court martial.

It is completely different. Haig was trying to wage a war using old school tactics that hadn't adapted to modern weaponry and as a results hundreds of thousands died trying to win victory. He didn't go out with the intention to kill them and if he had the tactical know how to win the war without his troops dying then I am sure he would have used those tactics. He was guilty of incompetence (although to the best of my knowledge there was no-one suggesting a different course of action in any of the armies involved) not murder. The politicians that decided to wage the war would have been more culpable.

Shooting an injured man who (apparently) no longer posed a threat is completely different. I wouldn't condemn that act in itself had it been a heat of battle moment (after all without being in his position none of us know how we would have reacted) but from what I've read he was in control of his actions. It could be argued the man was probably going to die anyway and he prevented further pain and suffering and I have no sympathy for the man killed who was prepared to kill others. However, if an army operating within international law starts acting like that then it endangers them in future situations and they can't complain when people start killing injured troops rather than taking them prisoner. I know that terrorist organisations / insurgents already do that but that's the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. On top of that it provides the sort of propaganda that helps the Taliban thrive, I don't any of them cared about the guy being killed but no doubt they used it as a sign of what the 'colonial invaders' will do to innocent Afghans.

pliptrot

mamba80 wrote:

I dont understand the Haig connection, a better analogy would be bush and blair, 2 world leaders that through deliberate lies and deceit have cost the lives of 1000s of US and UK service men and women and replaced a relatively stable dictatorship (Iraq) with a chaotic country where 100s of 1000s of people have died and will continue to die.
saddam and Bin laden were sworn enemies, now iraq is a hot bed of extremisim, supplying battle hardened veterans to Libya and Syria and anywhere else for that matter.
Not being content with this, they then set about Afganistan, butchering their way through the Taliban and any civilians that got in their way + of course adding to the death toll of their own citizens.
the 2 Bs actions, indirectly, have led to this marine being in this situation in the first place.

and what happened to these 2 men and their lackeys? absolutely nothing, infact they have gone on to even greater riches for their crimes.

What he said, only Afghanistan came first. Bush also made massive errors of judgement in the early days of that war, and then went on what, evidently, was a personal vendetta in Iraq.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

However, if an army operating within international law starts acting like that then it endangers them in future situations and they can't complain when people start killing injured troops rather than taking them prisoner. I know that terrorist organisations / insurgents already do that but that's the difference between a terrorist and a soldier..

For a good example of this, see Israel.......

mamba80

pliptrot wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I dont understand the Haig connection, a better analogy would be bush and blair, 2 world leaders that through deliberate lies and deceit have cost the lives of 1000s of US and UK service men and women and replaced a relatively stable dictatorship (Iraq) with a chaotic country where 100s of 1000s of people have died and will continue to die.
saddam and Bin laden were sworn enemies, now iraq is a hot bed of extremisim, supplying battle hardened veterans to Libya and Syria and anywhere else for that matter.
Not being content with this, they then set about Afganistan, butchering their way through the Taliban and any civilians that got in their way + of course adding to the death toll of their own citizens.
the 2 Bs actions, indirectly, have led to this marine being in this situation in the first place.

and what happened to these 2 men and their lackeys? absolutely nothing, infact they have gone on to even greater riches for their crimes.

What he said, only Afghanistan came first. Bush also made massive errors of judgement in the early days of that war, and then went on what, evidently, was a personal vendetta in Iraq.

You are correct but what i meant was the blood shed, the initial afgan invasion to get rid of the taliban was relatively short and quickly followed by the "the war is over" speech by, was it bush? or the idiot who went on about unknowns his name escapes me!
Bush senior, realised that Iraq was better off under Saddam and pulled short the the first 1990s invasion, leaving SH in place, its a terrible shame he didnt have his fathers sense or his own experience of war like his dad did.
As i said, the marine will pay the penalty for his crime, bush and blair? ..nothing at all.

Pross

Rumsfeld!