Constructive gadfly
Published on June 15, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics
  On Okinawa for the first time Marines in the Pacific had to deal with significant numbers of civilians. Our platoon came upon a large cave whence emanated a burst of rifle shot. The platoon retaliated with dominant firepower for some thirty seconds. There was no return fire — just screams, groans and cries. Slowly several women and children emerged from the mouth. The Marines were aghast; the first team of the first squad cautiously — making certain the civilians were not booby trapped — approached the bloodied file. Another, a tiny woman, emerged carrying in her arms a mortally wounded child. Others followed, carried out or limping and crawling; in their midst was a Nip soldier, arms raised, bowing, pleading mercy. The civilians pushed him away and shouting angrily apparently for his desperate action leading to their bloody fate. In all there were some forty civilians, of whom eight were dead and most wounded whom the corpsmen attended.

The platoon was guilt-ridden throughout the day and cursed the coward who had fired from the cave. Obviously there is no correlation to Haditha other than the uptightness of men in combat. As an ex-marine, I find it incredible that Haditha was a deliberately crazed reaction to avenge a fallen comrade. There has been no reports, however, that rifle fire had ensued from the houses in question; and even if there had been Marines would have riddled the houses before kicking down the doors to size up the situation.

I fear, if indeed true as transpired, Haditha sumbolizes frustration among troops in a war gone awry when Marines not poorly trained reservists no longer conduct themselves with combat discipline and moral sense.

          

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 14, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 15, 2006
First of all Bakerstreet, I did thank him for his service and I have the utmost respect for that part of his life. Nothing in my life even qualifies me for anything less than utter awe in Stevendedalus' background.

However, that being said, I can't let his completely unfounded accusations and total betrayal go unnoticed.

Let's do this...

Stevendedalus gave us an account of a terrible situation on Okinawa during WWII. He tells the story, complete with the explanation of why U.S. Marines would have fired upon innocent civilians. He is right, there was no war crime committed there, only one cowardly shooter.

Let's put that story in the context of Haditha today

Let's say that Stevendedalus' account here was the official news release by the USMC. However, the press does their normal hatchet job and what hits the AP is...

On Okinawa for the first time Marines in the Pacific had to deal with significant numbers of civilians. The platoon fired upon it with dominant firepower for some thirty seconds. There was no return fire — just screams, groans and cries. Slowly several women and children emerged from the mouth. -making certain the civilians were not booby trapped — approached the bloodied file. Another, a tiny woman, emerged carrying in her arms a mortally wounded child. Others followed, carried out or limping and crawling; In all there were some forty civilians, of whom eight were dead and most wounded.


A U.S. Congressman and Former Marine took that report and made statements against Stevendedalus and his fellow Marines present that day.

How different would Stevendedalus look at Haditha if he was willing to give those 24 Marines the same respect and benefit of the doubt that he asks of us here?
on Jun 15, 2006
For the record:

Richard R. Kennedy, I retract all statements calling you a coward. I do consider your accusations and words in this artical to be cowardly, but we both know that there is a huge difference between a person committing a single cowardly act and a person deserving of the label "coward".

I read your account of that terrible day in Okinawa and thought you were leading up to showing an understanding and empathy towards the Marines in Haditha, when I read on to find a total disregard for them, while emotionally charged from the first part, well... I'll admit, my rhetoric went beyond the reasonable.

One war veteran to another. I don't expect you to excuse my words, but I do expect a person with your background to give our Marines today the same respect you expect given to you for your experiences and sacrifice for our nation.
on Jun 15, 2006
This is true, because as I said in my original response, we all know who he prefers to give HIS 'benefit of the doubt' to, and it's never been America. Are we supposed to read each article as if we know nothing of the author's history here?

Hah, I'd like to see you behave that generously with me a time or two.


True Little Whip. Sevendedalus never gives our troops the benefit of the doubt... "Where goes the benefit of the doubt, there goes the heart"
on Jun 15, 2006
He has given them the benefit of the doubt by using the same "if" everyone else does. Both of you are kind enough to leave it open ended, and yet draw conclusions about the war and our society based upon what you think MIGHT have happened.

The difference is, based upon what you have seen and read you lean toward believing them innocent, so you skew your wrath toward the MSM and those you think are blaming them without proof. stevendedalus, from his experience and what HE has read, tends to think otherwise. Sadly for him, stevendedalus isn't in the Popular Front for JU Jingoism that thinks it rules the forums.

His aren't the right "ifs" to please you. If you want to go back and look at all the "ifs" on this forum that tend toward assuming Democrats are guilty before they have been in front of a jury, we can.

If putting an "if" is good enough to warrant offering opinions about them, and "if" is good enough to use to call the people whose families were killed at Haditha liars, then an "if" ought to be good enough for offering an opinion about the situation at Haditha in terms of our troops.

If you don't like "ifs" then none of us should have any comment at all, one way OR the other.
on Jun 15, 2006
If you don't like "ifs" then none of us should have any comment at all, one way OR the other.


I made my comments WITHOUT any accusation towards steven, but it's true enough that steven can get jumped a little easier than some of us. Although I disagre with steven around 99% of the time I have found him to be an aticulate and well presented writer and enjoy reading his presentations.

BTW baker it's not up to you to decided who can or cannot comment on anything here, whether you agree or disagre with the comments.

Ted backed off and apoligized, why are you still carping about it?
on Jun 15, 2006
BakerStreet... his accusations came before the "if" and sorry, but I've never made any assumptions of their innocence. One place where Stevendedalus and I do agree is that neither of us are so naive that we would deny that being a U.S. Marine (or member of any other U.S. Armed Service, sadly does not make a person incapable of war crimes.

My beef with him is only that he expects us to give him and his buddies the benefit of any doubt about that terrible day in Okinawa... but he is quick to condemn other Marines.
on Jun 15, 2006
"BTW baker it's not up to you to decided who can or cannot comment on anything here, whether you agree or disagre with the comments."


Nor is it up to the current clique to police the boards for what they consider to be patriotism. You comment, ParaTed comments, I comment, and we all get it as hard as we deserve it for the ass ignorant things we say. I never said anything was up to me, though I have a few ideas about how things might be balanced out around here a bit better.

We'll see how things go.

P.S. it was a backhanded apology that didn't address post #6, and frankly I don't buy it.
on Jun 15, 2006
24 by BakerStreet
Thu, June 15, 2006 3:26 PM


have a few ideas about how things might be balanced out around here a bit better.

We'll see how things go.


you could always switch sides and become a liberal. hahahahhah


P.S. it was a backhanded apology that didn't address post #6, and frankly I don't buy it.


not your call, it's stevens.
on Jun 15, 2006
P.S. it was a backhanded apology that didn't address post #6, and frankly I don't buy it.


It was a retraction, not an apology
on Jun 15, 2006
We'll see how things go.


We all make our comments and respond to each other in various ways. Whether we agree, disagree, congratulate or condemn, we usually end up on friendly terms in the end.
on Jun 15, 2006
It's human nature to draw preliminary conclusions based on whatever information is available. I don't consider stevendedalus to have betrayed anyone - he expressed how he'd feel if the accusations prove to be true. Definitive conclusions are a long way off & the truth of what happened may never be known to the satisfaction of everyone with a predisposition one way or the other.

It is just as possible that a real, if tragic, event was precipitated by insurgents/terrorists & manipulated by people with an agenda as it is that the Marines "went off the reservation" & wantonly killed innocents in revenge. We just don't know. I'm inclined, however, to believe the Marines' statements until & unless hard evidence contradicts them.
on Jun 15, 2006
If anyone compares this to Murtha, they must not remember what Murtha said. Murtha said "I will not excuse murder and that what's happened," and "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" and this and that. Equating Murtha to what stevendedalus said is giving Murtha a pass, imho, and dragging stevendedalus through the mud.

"It was a retraction, not an apology"


I don't have much expectation of anything more than that from you, ParaTed.
on Jun 16, 2006
Though I may be a coward, BakerStreet is surely a courageous guy.
But I don't think there's ever been much speculation about who Mr Dedalus prefers to give the benefit of the doubt to.
Why? Because I've been against the war from the start? I'm not some flower child who doesn't know the fog of war. Even if the Marines did go berserk as charged; I hold the poorly planned war responsible for placing our troops in such ambiguous zones of combat.
on Jun 16, 2006
Apology or "retraction" accepted, ParaTed.

Thanks, Daiwa, for noticing conditional clauses.
on Jun 16, 2006
I'm just waiting. Seeing what happens. It is hard to not say they are innocent. I've had the great pleasure of being related to marines, and having met one once. So, it is hard to not shout, "Innocent!" Still, I've chose to remain neutral on this, they are neither guilty nor innocent. Call it a, "stasis." Once everything (hopefully) is out, *then* I will decide.

That's all I can do. Wait and see.

~L
3 Pages1 2 3