Should our soldiers sacrificed their lives to..

[Mangoman]

A child wearing an explosive vest ?

US soldiers defended themselves against children in Vietnam and now the same tactics are being used in Afghanistan.

But now it seems public opinion might be moving on the issue ,there are voices saying that the soldiers should not target children even if the children are trying to kill them.

My opinion for what it's worth, is a soldier should defend himself against a child trying to kill him whether the child knows what he/she is doing or not.

[sadbear]

1. When children attack our soldiers, it's definitely time to leave.

[Mangoman]

2. But...

Should the soldier defend himself against that child attacking him ?

[sadbear]

3. If it comes down to a soldier or a child, I choose the child.

[Mangoman]

4. Thanks for being honest

That's not an easy position to take ,you are telling us that a soldier should hold his fire while a child approaches and explodes himself killing the soldier and possibly many more men.

What age do you draw the line 9, 12 , 15 ?

[sadbear]

5. Anyone younger than the youngest American soldier.

[Mangoman]

6. Here is a scenario..

A group of soldiers are waiting at a checkpoint just hanging out ,a child approaches who is obviously wearing an explosive vest, in your opinion the soldiers should just say goodbye to each other and accept their fate

Just the fact that the US would tell the enemy that we will not defend against children encourages the enemy to use children.

[sadbear]

7. Are you saying their only recourse is to kill the child?

You're putting these soldiers in a very specific situation. They are in a place where 1) several soldiers have congregated, 2) a child has access to this place and can just walk up to the soldiers, 3) there is no place for the soldiers to retreat to.

Is it common practice for the U.S. military to put its soldiers in such a situation?

[Mangoman]

16. Retreat?

Suppose they are guarding a senator or the entrance to an embassy they should just retreat ? and leave it unprotected it's their duty to protect why would they retreat ?

[sadbear]

19. You're narrowing it down even further (and pushing the bounds of reality).

If they're doing their job correctly, they wouldn't be in such a situation, would they?

Stray children shouldn't be allowed anywhere near those places.

[Mangoman]

21. Come on now...

Picture John McCain and Lindsey Graham walking through the Baghdad market they are protected by soldiers ,perhaps two children rush out firing guns ..using your view the soldiers should retreat leaving the senators unprotected

After all we can't kill kids it's just wrong

[sadbear]

23. Did that happen?

[Mangoman]

24. Yes

McCain did walk through Baghdad market and was protected by soldiers

You are telling me that if the kid ran out with a gun shooting at McCain that the soldiers should retreat instead of defend the senator

[sadbear]

25. Did I ever say the soldiers should abandon a Senator?

John McCain and Lindsey Graham can retreat, too.

Your hypotheticals are just that. Hypothetical. And avoidable.

[Pacafishmate]

27. Mighty fine dancin' there.

[Mangoman]

29. Wow

So when McCain and Graham visited Baghdad , if a child ran out shooting you're telling me that the soldiers should've fled and McCain and Graham should've just tried to keep up with them

Just when you thought you heard it all

[sadbear]

31. So now children are shooting up marktets in Baghdad?

Wow, indeed! I thought this was limited to Afghanistan, but apparently this child soldier/suicide bomber problem is epidemic.

[Mangoman]

36. Perhaps you need to inform yourself

This tactic as been around since Vietnam probably before that

To imply it just began in one country is absurd

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. This tactic is as old as warfare

And child soldiers are a problem...

I gave him the examples of WWIi...I could have used WWI! I also mentioned the American Civil War.

But he'll the war of independence had us use young men as young as 12, as couriers and spies. Those couriers carried more than just messages as well...at times gun powder and weapons.

[Auntie Bush]

12. What you said! Sad but..........

[Auntie Bush]

13. The child would be killed in either case...so why not defend ourselves?

[randome]

15. That's the best point to be made on this.

Now we need to get our soldiers out of countries we have no business being in.

[leftynyc]

44. Exactly (n/t)

[Pacafishmate]

26. Wow. I wouldn't. If a child was shooting at me, I'd shoot back.

Our soldiers should be able to as well.

[underoath]

22. yes. self defense against a threat trying to kill him.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I am sorry but this view, not the leaving

But the lack of an ability for a soldier or a unit to defend one self is bizarre.

I am certainly glad you were not in charge of the US in 1945. The volksgrenadiers included boys as young as fourteen and men as old as 65.

Should the Allied troops not defended themselves and just marched back to Normandy? I mean, those were children!

The use of children in war is supposedly penalized by international law with good reason. It is also a tactic, and a successful one as well. After all, folks like you are too precious, sorry for this, to get it. War is nasty business and soldiers have a fundamental right of self defense in the field. If a child, these kids are usually as young as 14, see the example of the Volksgrenadiers, attacks or threatens soldiers they have a right to defend themselves and go home.

It might hurt your sensibilities, but that is the way it is.

If you want to argue we must leave due to the expense, the lack of strategic goals met, things like that, sure. You will have little discussion from me. But we need to leave due to child soldiers? You kid me. One more thing, until relatively recently we used child soldiers. Younger men than 18 enlisted. And the civil war, the drum boys were, well...yes...as young as 14.

And sadly people have used very young children as well. You are faulting the soldier for a decision made by others? Amazing.

[sadbear]

32. You're comparing Afghanistan to WWII?

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. I am comparing child soldiers

Sorry... But it is the same logic. A soldier has a fundamental right to self defense, whether it's Bastogne, Kandahar or the other side of the moon in 2500.

You may not like it...but I see your way out is saying are you comparing WWII to Afghanistan? No, I am comparing apples to apples...child soldiers and their use by those well above their chains of command.

[SQUEE]

50. In Somalia we were often engaged by young men

12-15 Y.O. boys were driving technicals and manning barricades armed with grenades, RPKs and AKs as well. For a while the warlords there would push younger children (and it has been reported women holding infants) in front of an advance to test our resolve. This is a tactic as old as war, to find a soft spot in your enemys will and exploit it.
Here in the U.S. "militia" types are also holding out the idea that women and children will confer immunity from US Military should their STHF fantasies come true.
It is barbaric to us as a practice, but the only way it stops is to actually engage such tactics consistently and ruthlessly, a threat is not determined by age or sex, we have protocols for these situations that remove judgment calls, sadly they do not remove the sense of responsibility when they are carried out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Trust me, I get it

And the militia types will have a nasty wake up call

[lonestarnot]

8. IMO, the soldier isn't the one who would be killing the child in that scenario.

[Mangoman]

10. If the soldier is not killing the child

That means the child would detonate killing the soldier

It would be the soldiers choice

Put it this way if your concern is for the children and announcing to the enemy that we will not defend ourselves against children would put far far more children in danger

Your concern is misplaced

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

18. I read lonestarnot's reply the other way ...

... that the soldier is justified in shooting the child, to protect himself and his post.

And, that the guilty party in that case is the person who strapped the bomb onto the child and sent him on that death march.

The soldier is not guilty, though he will likely be punished by nightmares.

[OldDem2012]

9. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the original subject had to do with....

....firing missiles from drones at targeted individuals who happen to be in a dwelling or neighborhood also occupied by children and other non-combatants. Although I'm in favor of taking out terrorist leadership whenever and wherever possible, I do have moral and ethical questions about doing so in a dwelling or neighborhood also occupied by children and other non-combatants. I personally would not want to be the person having to make the decision on whether or not to fire.

I think most of us agree that's a far cry from a soldier defending himself or herself from a child wearing a bomb-vest. As a vet, my opinion is to do what has to be done, even though I know the people pulling the trigger will be forever haunted by what they had to do.

The simplest solution is to accelerate our departure from a land that has never been very forgiving of foreign invaders. With Osama's death, we no longer have any reason for staying. In fact, it's my strong personal opinion that once the Al Qaeda camps were destroyed we should have gotten out of Afghanistan immediately and relied on small unit special forces raids to keep the terrorists in check. Most people have forgotten that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nationals were among the 9-11 terrorists.

[Marinedem]

11. Fuck no.

Fuck no.

I don't care if my mother walks up with the intent to kill me, she's going down.

There is nothing noble about allowing yourself today because the person intent on murdering you is considered above your violence by virtue of age. Nothing at all.

It is unfortunate that there are some assholes out there that would send a child to do something so awful, but in the end, it is a kill or be killed situation. Why should one man refuse to defend himself for the sake of a manipulated child when he has children of his own, or other loved ones to come home to?

[GeorgeGist]

14. Soldiers in foreign countries are on offense.

[abelenkpe]

37. Yep

We shouldn't be there at all.

[AlexSatan]

77. Counter example: US soldiers

defending parts of France in 1944 that they had taken from the Germans.

They are in a foreign country but are on defense.

[randome]

17. You raise an interesting point, Mangoman. But threads like this make me wonder what we're doing.

Have we effectively given up on bringing our troops back? Why isn't the ONLY thing being discussed here is how to stop invading and subduing other countries? Is it because we really ARE fighting terrorist organizations? Or are we slogging through thousands of others on our way to fulfill that mission?

Do we have a right -or even a need- to be the aggressors? Or are we 'defending' ourselves?

I have no problem with taking on Syria or any other country if the purpose is to bring stability and stop the civil wars. But Afghanistan? Why are we still there? I don't even think Al Quieda is there any longer, are they?

[raouldukelives]

20. Since war is an option of last resort.

We are obviously fighting for the continuation of our existence as the United States of America. Our government and people who enlist are so concerned over the threat from Iraq & Afghanistan that we are willing to accept the targeting of children to assure victory. That we will stop at nothing to make sure their naval vehicles never threaten our shores.
I myself have never understood it to be so dire, to the extent that massive ground campaigns and air strikes need to be used, but they surely have different information than I am allowed to see so I must withhold judgement. If that is indeed the case, I thank them for defending us and our way of life.

[mike_c]

30. it means we're losing miserably...

...and have no business continuing to fight. When people become willing to send their children to fight, they cannot be subjugated or negotiated with. We can fight them forever, to exhaustion, or leave.

Our military has no business in Afghanistan.

[Lightbulb_on]

58. Often not their child...

... But rather one recruited or purchased.

[JVS]

34. Do you mean by shooting the child when s/he is an imminent threat or by attacking with drones...

before it comes to that juncture?

The circumstances make a difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. He means when you have a vest wearing kid

Walking towards those troops.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. This is what happens when you elect to be an enforcer for the Evil Empire.

And just as in Vietnam, we are on the wrong side of a horrible crime.

[leftynyc]

46. You mean we SHOULD'T

be fighting the taliban and al queda? The people who make life miserable for all the girls and women there? We're on the wrong side of that? The fact we cannot win there is an entirely different subject.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. No, we shouldn't. You seem to be under the impression that violent conflict is the only option

we have. There are horrors worse than what happens in Afghanistan going on all over the world and if war is the only option, why are we not engaged in mass murder in all of those places? Your position reminds me of the old saying; When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

If we really want to help the people of Afghanistan, we should be showering that, and the other nations, with infrastructure, education, health care, and the option of modernity. How do you think that the Taliban and al Queda came to exist?

For less than a quarter of what we are spending on our Mighty Military Machine ®, we could provide food, clean water, general and reproductive health care, and basic education to the world. From where are the Taliban and al Queda going to get funding and volunteers willing to die in a healthy, educated, well fed population? Do you imagine that some goat herder in Afghanistan, his wife, or his children are going to volunteer to blow themselves up when they have the option of living a decent life?

[leftynyc]

51. We have been building schools

and hospitals and electric grids so I'm puzzled as to your point. Do you honestly believe children are volunteering to blow themselves up? What good does it do to build schools for girls when attendance is a good way to be poisoned or have acid thrown in their faces? I'm all in favor of getting our troops out as civilization is obviously not on the menu in Afghanistan (just look at what conditions were for women before we stepped foot there after 9/11). It would be lovely if the population there could actually vote for what they want without interference from anyone but we both know women will not be part of that equation so it's automatically illegitimate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. Again, you're failing to see reality. We are building a few things, but we're doing it as an

invading military. Putting aside for the moment the fact that almost all that we're building is infrastructure for a pipeline so that our corporate overlords can steal the Afghan's natural resources, the few things that we have done along the lines of humanitarian aid are for show and lack the commitment that would show sincerity. And even so, they are immediately filled. The women and girls still come, even in the face of the horrors committed by the criminals that we created. They have no good options and still they risk all just for a chance.

Do you remember the phrase, "winning hearts and minds"? That cannot be done in the role of invader especially in Afghanistan.

Let me ask you again, do you know how al Queda came to be?

[leftynyc]

68. Yes, I know the history of al queda and the taliban

and sooner or later people will blame the actual people doing the damage rather than focus on stupidity like how the groups got started. Tell me, what do you think will immediately happen to the women and girls the very second we leave? Are you comfortable with that?

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. Exactly what is happening to them right now all over that country that we ignore.

And I am as comfortable with that as I am with all of the horrors all around the world that we have helped to create.

You would like to ignore and divert attention away from that reality. I understand that, especially since it is now 'our side' that is continuing the slaughter and maintaining the system that allows it, but this administration's crimes are still crimes. We are the people doing the actual damage right along with the aforementioned players.

If you want to address the real issues, fine, welcome aboard. But, if you want to just keep pretending that we are doing anything other propagating human misery and suffering on a scale never before realized in human history, you are just another part of the problem.

[leftynyc]

71. With all due respect

You can stuff your self righteous attitude. I've been working on women's issues for longer than you can imagine and I've been involved in helping the women in Afghanistan long before 9/11 and long before the vast majority of Americans could find it on a map. While you want to angst about how horrible the US and tut tut at how we are apparently responsible for every ill on the planet, I want to know those women are going to be protected from animals who want to destroy their souls. These women aren't being treated as slaves because of anything the US has done or is doing. They're doing it because they can and because they're religious freaks - the same reason women are abused all over the world and you can blame the US for that or you can be part of that solution. Looks to me like you just want to thump your chest with your righteousness which makes you useless in terms of solving the problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

72. OK fine, I learned long ago that there is no win dealing with the self righteous useful idiots.

There is only one solution to the problems that are Afghanistan and Pakistan and all over Asia and Africa and South America and it doesn't involve the invasion of anywhere.

So let me ask you this, after all those unimaginable years you’ve been so tirelessly working on "women's issues", how much better is it? How many women have you personally watched die while you run around claiming that if we just kill a few thousand more people they will realize how wrong they've been all along, and acquiesce to the obvious superiority of the western liberal?

You're the modern version the liberal morality police of the late 19th - 20th centuries that so wanted to help those poor Negroes. So long as they did not have a man in the house or think they might know how to raise their own children. Who made surprise inspections looking for a second toothbrush that was surely proof that they were living in sin and were therefore unworthy of your beneficence.

Those women have been living a 10th century nightmare since the 10th century, and once we've taken everything we want from them and you've moved on to the next crusade, they will still be stuck in that nightmare. But that's OK because you will pluck a few out of hell and get all the attention you're due for making such a valiant effort.

Oh, and the vast majority of Americans still can't point to Afghanistan on a map, but I can.

And to the inevitable jury, please take a moment to read the whole exchange.

[leftynyc]

75. You are sounding quite deranged

and I've wasted enough time trying to reason with someone convinced of their own fabulousness.

[Egalitarian Thug]

76. You are the one trying to defend mass murder as an attempt to protect the victims,

but I'm deranged.

BTW, Just where was that attempt at reason?

[abelenkpe]

38. Drones should not be targeting children

Your scenario seems a cover for our ugly murderous drone policy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. No, unless we had drones in Nam and I did not know about it

This is a soldier on the ground facing a real risk from a younger person.

This is not exclusive to Afghanistan, or for that matter this iteration of the Afghan wars. They did the same when the soviets were around.

I am critical of the drone policy, hell, we need to get out...but that does not mean a soldier has no right of self defense. That is a purely tactical, as in small tactics, as in it will not change the course of the war, situation. Drones are far more somewhere between the tactical and strategic level. Heck, they probably argue it's strategic.

Is it working? Not in my opinion. But I won't conflate the two.

[Mangoman]

42. So..

If a droned spots some kids along with some adults setting up an ambush for our soldiers we should ignore it ?

[pinboy3niner]

45. That's quite a different scenario from the one posed in the OP

The difference is no imminent threat of harm, and alternatives are available.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. +brazillion

I think the OP has not served. Conflating this is amazing.

[Egalitarian Thug]

49. If the drone has spotted an ambush being set up, it's not going to work, is it? n/t

[Mangoman]

52. Not true

Perhaps there is a group assembling a mortar launcher , maybe there are two kids there

Please explain how the mortar will fail to launch just because a drone spotted it

Waiting

[pinboy3niner]

54. You alert your units to avoid that area

Ambushes rarely succeed when no one walks into them.

[Mangoman]

57. The group is setting up a mortar attack

How do you warn the troops ?

Does the drone know where the mortar will be shot ?

How would you evacuate a base in a few seconds ?

Please tell us all how a mortar will fail to launch just because a drone looked at it. ....

Still waiting

[pinboy3niner]

61. How do you warn the troops? Um...by radio, maybe?

How do you think troops in the field get their orders and report back to higher HQ?

You said it was an ambush, not a mortar set up to attack a base, which is different (not an ambush).

"Still waiting" is cute, but if you lack military experience you may be out of your element here...

[Mangoman]

63. So what. ?

Suppose it's a mortar attack that can be avoided by striking the area

If you saw a child there you would allow the launch and attack to happen , perhaps killing our troops , just cause you saw a child at the launch site

Thank god ALL of our troops disagree with you

[pinboy3niner]

64. You obviously have no clue about ambushes, mortars, OR the troops

Thank God all our troops disagree with me? That reminds me of what one guy I knew replied to a conservative woman.

The guy was protesting against the Vietnam War with other VVAW members at a GOP convention. One woman in a group of Republicans leaving the convention shouted, "Why don't you support the troops?"

My friend shouted back, "Ma'am, we ARE the troops!"

[AlexSatan]

78. Assume radios are jammed NT

[Egalitarian Thug]

60. Yes true. You clearly have no idea at all of what you're talking about.

While we do lack horse cavalry and dispatch runners, we do have these marvelous gadgets called radios and they allow us to talk to our units in the field. We also have these things called satellites that allow this communication to take place in real time, anywhere on earth.

[Mangoman]

66. At least you admit

You are willing to sacrifice our soldiers and perhaps visiting senators if an attack happens with a child involved

I can promise you that NONE of our soldiers would run away from an attacking child , the thought is absurd

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. Did you respond to the wrong post? If not, your reply is completely meaningless

as nothing like this was written by me or anyone else that I see on this clusterfuck of a thread.

Is it perhaps that English is not your primary language? You don't seem be able understand the words that were written.

[leftynyc]

43. Agree that self defense

is always appropriate but if this is the kind of thing we have to fight against, we've already lost. When the other side is willing to sacrifice their children and the other isn't willing to defend itself against children, it's time to leave. I just wish we didn't have to leave the women to the fucking taliban who think nothing of stonings, beheadings and poisoning girls who want an education.

[Arugula Latte]

53. If we'd stop invading and attacking other countries for profit we wouldn't have this problem.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Don't you know that we have to destroy the country to save the country?

And profit has nothing to do with it. How silly of you.

[LanternWaste]

55. if soldiers of any nation are forced to deal with that scenario in the here and now...

I think the conflict is by default, a miserable failure if soldiers of any nation are forced to deal with that scenario in the here and now.


That being said, I don't pretend to know who should kill, be killed, or who's life is worth more-- others are much more adept at pretending that knowledge than I.

[Carolina]

62. the children are being used as pawns

but that said, we should get the hell out of their country.

We're in the wrong... we bombed (starting on 10/7/2001!) and then invaded Afghanistan. Is it any wonder the Afghanis are against us to the point of using children as suicide bombers?! All's fair in love and war, remember? And the US has violated the Geneva Accords and whatever it wants in its blood/oil lust.

9/11 was blowback (remember our CIA trained bin Laden to fight/bring down an invading empire known as the USSR) and its use as an excuse to invade two ME nations will only reap more blowback. Terrorism is not nations or states but mobile cells. US actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were, and remain, wrong... as were US installed puppets Pinochet, Noriega, the Shah, etc.

There is hell to pay for what this nation has wrought which is why we are rotting from within and will ultimately be brought down from without. It is the story of the hubris of all great, former empires!

Actually, both these children and our soldiers are pawns

[lunatica]

65. You really are a sick person

That's not a compliment by the way.

[Mangoman]

82. Oh but it is a compliment

You found the thought of circumcision to be disgusting so you called me sick shooting the messenger

Trust me coming from you this is a compliment

You simply show up in threads to tell people how sick and disgusting they are

You've provided some very deep and profound thoughts thank you for your input

No really, thank you

[WooWooWoo]

70. I'm confused as to what the point of this thread is

[cpwm17]

81. On another thread, Mangoman supported a signature drone strike on some young kids in Afghanistan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021931789

The US murdered some young kids digging on the side of the road with a drone strike. There was a possibility that they may have been planting IED's – they didn't know.

Now Mangoman is changing the original premise and asking if our soldiers should murder kids that may be a direct threat to them.

[Mangoman]

84. There are some voices on the DU

That are saying under no circumstances should a child be killed even if the child is trying to kill soldier

I have read on this forum that if McCain and Graham are walking through the Baghdad market and a child runs out with a gun at the soldiers They should run away and tell the senators to try and keep up

My view is that the soldiers should do their duty and protect the senators ,others might feel that the soldiers should abandon their post run away and leave the Senators To fend for themselves

[unhappycamper]

74. Perhaps the question should be asked: Why are we there?

Occupations are difficult to maintain for long periods of time. After you kill shitloads of men, women and children locals tend to get pissed at the occupying force. And they fight the occupation any way they can.

Building power system, roads, prisons and schools does not erase the fact that affected families have lost their loved ones to an occupier. And they rarely forget.

Why we are still in Afghanistan?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

79. No. Shoot them between the eyes...

But best of all: Don't put soldiers in these types of wars.

[Arctic Dave]

80. Since I didn't put them in that situation I can't call them " our troops"

They put their own lives in a shithole.

Sucks to be them. But if they choose to do or don't, not my problem.

I don't want to hear their sob stories when they get home.

[99Forever]

83. What a cowardly way to try and "justify" the original crime.

The REAL crime here, is the invasion and occupation "our troops" have done to a sovereign nation. Every other brutal, murderous, inhuman indignity that follows, is the responsibility of "our troops" because each act stems from there. Every stinking, rotting, vile, nasty, murdering one of them.