U.S. Vows "Revenge"?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

KILLLLLLLLLLL!!!

Oh, on another note, hopefully the ex-intelligence dude (forget his name) ousts Bush. The other dude, Kennedy, may be anti-war, but @ least he did service.

bug

I learned at a young age that two wrongs don't make a right

maybe you could coach the bush admin on this, after all they are vowing revenge

AmenToThat

Originally posted by vorbis
Mercury_Tilt
that bitterness is seriously clouding your reasoning. Your total failure to debate a point rationally is a bit puzzling. Also I wonder yet again why people jump to genocide conclusions regarding Faluja. As someone else said, the Russians are FAR more heavyhanded in Chechnia yet that is not worthy of comment? I think they're just trying to stabilise the situation.

Big difference is that the Russians have never tried to make out they are 'leaders off the free world" or that they are there to bring peace, prosperity and democracy to all within Iraq.
Its the hypocrisy of the 'coalition" that gets me personaly, I cant speak for others.

In regards to whatever may or may not happen in Falluja for the moment we can but jump to conclusions as there is very little information comming from within the city as all points of exit are blocked off.
It may turn out that there will be very few deaths in this attack and if so Ill be very happy to have been proved wrong.

naitkris

while i personally am no fan of American foreign policy, what happened in Fallujah is the most sickening thing i have ever seen on TV (still cant believe they showed unedited footage of it on Prime Time).

i think the US has full right in this case to storm that city and capture every man who took part in the killings of the four civilians. true, some will argue that the US is just as bad, but i disagree. i have yet to hear of US troops blowing up civilian cars, dragging the burning bodys out, tying the bodys to a car and dragging it along the road while bashing the bodys non-stop with all kinds of sharp objects then hanging the bodys up over a bridge while the crowd cheers "God is great" and smile for the video cameras of American or British cameramen of Arab descent. in fact, i have yet to hear of a US troop in Iraq doing that to anyone, armed or not, human or animal.

it seems that if you are western looking and you are in Fallujah driving along for whatever reason (sure you may be Irish, a neutral country and you may be opposed to the war etc.), but to many there you are either a. American or b. British (the c. Irish option doesnt figure in places like Fallujah). thus you are the enemy, as was the case of the 4 civilians who were brutally murdered there recently. it happened also to 2 unarmed civilian Finnish men a few weeks back... just because they were western looking - had they been Finnish of Arab descent i am very sure they would still be alive today. i.m.o. what happened in Fallujah was racism at its worst and not an attack on the occupying allied forces.

AmenToThat

Originally posted by naitkris
it seems that if you are western looking and you are in Fallujah driving along for whatever reason (sure you may be Irish, a neutral country and you may be opposed to the war etc.), but to many there you are either a. American or b. British (the c. Irish option doesnt figure in places like Fallujah). thus you are the enemy, as was the case of the 4 civilians who were brutally murdered there recently. it happened also to 2 unarmed civilian Finnish men a few weeks back... just because they were western looking - had they been Finnish of Arab descent i am very sure they would still be alive today. i.m.o. what happened in Fallujah was racism at its worst and not an attack on the occupying allied forces.

They were mercenerys, two of which were former green berets.

Twelve "arab" journalists have been killed at the hands of caolition forces this year in iraq no western journalist have been killed, what does this say about racism?

Redleslie

Originally posted by daveirl
Wait a minute in what society is killing civilians who are driving down the road not a crime?

Liberated Iraq? Family shot dead by panicking US troops.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
Wait a minute in what society is killing civilians who are driving down the road not a crime?

I'm not talking about going after 'insurgents' I'm talking about getting the people who were part of the lynch mob last Wednesday. How can you possibly contend that they weren't criminals?

civillians? are you deluded? Those were mercenaries, with guns... they were no "civillians". Any american is unwelcome in Iraq as the Iraqi people have broadly demonstrated. The american's have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in the country, and if they go illegally into another country they forfeit their right to live.. there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
Can people please deal with the actual issue, the only reason people seem to be able to give for the US not to go after these people is that the US has made mistakes in the past. If you extend this logic, practically no one should ever get arrested ever anywhere, since almost all police forces/countries etc. make mistakes.

Read my posts, I've never said that the War in Iraq was right, I've never said that killing people at road blocks in justified, all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

The US is in Iraq Illegally, it is not right to do anything in iraq. Any retribution that the US recives in Iraq while illegally occupying the country is justified and warranted. As you admit YOURSELF the war is wrong, the invasion is wrong. Therefore the US presence in IRAQ is WRONG, the Iraqi people have the right to defend themselves against these invaders by any means necessary.

your analogy to the gardai is SERIOUSLY flawed. The Gardai are appointed by the Irish government to protect the people of Ireland. The US has no right or jurisdiction in Iraq other than their own forceful invasion which is illegal and immoral, therefore your analogy is false and irrelevent.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

LOL, your joking right??

Comparing the illegal presence of a foreign army to a states own police force!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by daveirl
all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

daveirl, seriously, if this happened in Cork or Dublin do you think they'd seal off the city and start blowing the hell out of it with gunships?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3603097.stm

If they want to "get" the people responsible for it, they could do it in a way that doesn't involve blowing things up.
I think that's the problem many people have with the actions of the Americans, a response from them seems to always result in civilians being killed.

pork99

Originally posted by Memnoch
The US is in Iraq Illegally, it is not right to do anything in iraq. Any retribution that the US recives in Iraq while illegally occupying the country is justified and warranted. As you admit YOURSELF the war is wrong, the invasion is wrong. Therefore the US presence in IRAQ is WRONG, the Iraqi people have the right to defend themselves against these invaders by any means necessary.

your analogy to the gardai is SERIOUSLY flawed. The Gardai are appointed by the Irish government to protect the people of Ireland. The US has no right or jurisdiction in Iraq other than their own forceful invasion which is illegal and immoral, therefore your analogy is false and irrelevent.

OK its not comparable to Gardai arresting people here. Let us assume that it is a war, despite George shooting his mouth off about major combat operations being over. If you participate in a war you are bound by international laws such as the Geneva convention - I'm sure the Iraqi insurgents will not have even have heard of that.

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

Its amazing to me how left-wing people in this country can sympathise with all varieties of Islamo-fascist thugs just becase they are attacking the Americans. We are next on their list neutral or not.

I'm not saying that the US should go around the world invading and overthrowing totalitarian regimes however desirable that might be. Given the number of such regimes in the world its simply not possible. North Korea, for example, is a far more deserving case for an invasion. An illegal regime that actually possesses WMDs. But it would not be the push-over that the actual invsion of Iraq was (the invasion not the occupation).

Sleipnir

The point is, a wonderfully democratic and peacful occupying force such as the Americans should be far above seeking 'revenge'

i think the US has full right in this case to storm that city and capture every man who took part in the killings of the four civilians.

Storming a city full of women, children and elderly people is not a measured response to a relatively small group of men killing 4 others, no matter how they actually did it.
That is the kind of over-reaction the Iraqis got used to under Saddam's rule. They were supposed to have been liberated but now an entire city must sit and wait and hope they don't get shot 'by mistake'
This is winning "Hearts & Minds" then eh?

If 4 black men were killed in a similar way by a large group of white men in Manhatten would the U.S. army surround the island?

The recent event in Fallujah was a horrific, obscene and disgusting one by sub-human men who deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.
The men are on video, they should be found, arrested and tried.

And by the way, although seeing those men burn will be burned in my mind do you remember during the first war that road that out of Kuwait.
The "Highway of Death"?
Bombed by coalition forces?
More than 2000 vehicles? Including many buses trucks?
And not forgetting that this attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660.


How easily out minds replace one horror with another.
Picture attached for those who have forgotten.

pork99

Originally posted by Sleipnir


More than 2000 vehicles? Including many buses trucks?
And not forgetting that this attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660.

Busses & trucks looted by the Iraqi army and being used to carry their other loot home. From what I've read most of them did not hang around to be incinerated but legged it into the desert.

It occured after the ground war started. This was a defeated army fleeing in disorder after a land battle not an army peacefully withdrawing in compliance with a UN resolution.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

magpie

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes

Funny how the US army of occupation has turned one of the most virulently anti-Saddam groups into enemies already.

Who are the US supposed to be saving from themselves at this stage?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by pork99
Busses & trucks looted by the Iraqi army and being used to carry their other loot home. From what I've read most of them did not hang around to be incinerated but legged it into the desert.

It occured after the ground war started. This was a defeated army fleeing in disorder after a land battle not an army peacefully withdrawing in compliance with a UN resolution.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

What are you talking about "it occured after the ground war had started"
It also occured after the ground war was declared over!? Is that getting through yet?
Ground war starts.
Ground war finishes.
Iraqi troops flees.
Iraqi troops are firebombed?

The army were in retreat. RETREAT, geddit?
They were defeated, beaten and it was when they were leaving that they were attacked en-masse.
Even if they did have loot you don't line them up and start firing mavs ferchrissake.

Saddam was given a deadline of Jauary 15th 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait, he failed to meet that deadline and the war was the consequence. The withdrawal he announced was a lie.

What timeline are your on!?!?!
This was after the war was declared over. When it was finished yeah?
Are you getting this yet?

Johnmb

Originally posted by pork99
OK its not comparable to Gardai arresting people here. Let us assume that it is a war, despite George shooting his mouth off about major combat operations being over. If you participate in a war you are bound by international laws such as the Geneva convention - I'm sure the Iraqi insurgents will not have even have heard of that.
Only the losers are ever bound by any rules of law, and I'm sure the Iraqi freedom fighters have no intention of losing.

Besides which the people opposing the US invasion are either

1) Al Qaeda terrorists from all over the Moslem world
Since when? The Baathists aren't part of Al Quaeda, and neither are the Shiah. In fact, the only group know to have connections with Al Quaeda were based in the north, in the Kurdish area. If the Iraqis have turned to representatives of Al Quaeda for help, then the Americans have noone to blame but themselves, they forced the Iraqis into the hands of a group that had previously been their enemies.

2) Criminal elements who were favoured by Saddams regime - which was a criminal regime (how can it be illegal to invade and overthrow an illegal regime?*)
How was it a criminal regime? According to who? Every other country in the world seemed to regard it as legitimate, so when did that change?

3) Religious fanatic elements from among the Shi'tes
And the reason they are in such a position is because the normally moderate Shia are becoming more and more radical as a result of the occupation.

Its amazing to me how left-wing people in this country can sympathise with all varieties of Islamo-fascist thugs just becase they are attacking the Americans. We are next on their list neutral or not.
Most people posting here have expressed support for an occupied country fighting for freedom. Nobody has said it is okay because of the participants involved. As for us being neutral, we are not, and if we were attacked by these people I would hold Bertie personally responsible.

I'm not saying that the US should go around the world invading and overthrowing totalitarian regimes however desirable that might be. Given the number of such regimes in the world its simply not possible. North Korea, for example, is a far more deserving case for an invasion. An illegal regime that actually possesses WMDs. But it would not be the push-over that the actual invsion of Iraq was (the invasion not the occupation).
And they also were not the bearers of the personal grudge the Bush had when he came into office. Saddam was. Now the US are paying for Bush's personal grudge, as the Iraqi people are nopt going to lie back and allow another foreign power to dictate to them. Eventually, they will get rid of the occupying forces, and they will sort things out amoung themselves (probably via civil war). When all is said and done, the Iraqi people will decide their own future, not George Bush and his big business financiers.

magpie

I'm amazed to say it, but Johnmb I agree with all of your statements unconditionally. Good man!

naitkris

Originally posted by Memnoch
civillians? are you deluded? Those were mercenaries, with guns... they were no "civillians".

from all the sources i've read - they were not mercenaries, they were contractors hired to work as security for certain people and they were clothed in civilian clothing (not military uniform). sure, maybe some were ex-military, but just because a person was once in the army does not make them always a soldier. and as others have pointed out, 1 or 2 prolly did "carry" (note: not fire or used it, but "carry") a handgun (but who in Iraq doesnt at the moment?). i can guarantee you that this would still have happened had those 4 Americans been Irish and not American... as i said before, it happened to 2 Finnish businessmen a few weeks back... the men who did that to the 4 Americans did not pull them over and ask for their ID, question them about what they were doing etc. - they just killed them there and then, no remorse whatsoever.

Originally posted by Memnoch

Any american is unwelcome in Iraq as the Iraqi people have broadly demonstrated. The american's have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in the country, and if they go illegally into another country they forfeit their right to live.. there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

your use of the word "Any american" should be termed "Any westerner" as that includes Irish, Finnish, German, Swedish etc. people as well as i also read of 2 German businessmen (i.e. civilians) who were killed recently, as well as the 2 Finnish men. i am saying this as i mentioned above - the 4 men dressed in civilian clothing driving in the car were not stopped, ID'd, asked why they were there, what they were doing - they were just brutally killed straight away. looking at the video footage, anyone can tell that the car they were driving in was NOT military, it certainly wasnt bulletproof.

i understand you point of saying "Any american" in reference to the US starting the war in Iraq (which i still oppose). but you must not forget, the war happened, this issue is very different to that, this issue is about cruelty of an inimaginable kind to 4 human beings who were not military and did not stand chance of survival.

Originally posted by Memnoch

there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

i strongly disagree on your point of there being no American "civilians" as yes there are... doctors, nurses, aid workers, construction workers, businessmen etc. etc. are you saying these people are not civilians and should die just because they are in Iraq? i think the problem you are having here is with George Bush and the top people who made the final decision to go to war in Iraq.

if i was American and in the US army, i would not quit the army because i believe or do not believe it to be right to overthrow a dictator, i would just go where my country tells me and do my duty. likewise, if i was an American aid worker, i would still go to Iraq and work there even though i would be opposed to the war and George Bush. i think this is the same for a lot of Americans in Iraq. they will instead just vote for Kerry not Bush when the time comes and get on with life.

Johnmb

Originally posted by naitkris
from all the sources i've read - they were not mercenaries, they were contractors hired to work as security for certain people and they were clothed in civilian clothing (not military uniform).
Well that certainly seems different to the reports that I have seen. On the link provided in one of the other threads, they report that the men were wearing camoflage flak jackets, and at least one had dog-tags. This can be seen in the report too, so it is not just an unsubstantiated claim by the journalist. They were working as security according to your post, so what else other than mercenaries would they be? They are, as far as most of the Iraqi freedom fighters are concerned, hired goons who are there to oppress and suppress the Iraqi people. Nothing different would have occurred had the situation arose in Ireland. If anything, I think the Iraqis have to get a little more vicious. They don't have the numbers of trained men, or the technology, to defeat the US in a straight fight. The best way to even thing up is via guerilla tactics to deal with the numbers, and by generating fear to deal with the superior training and technology. If any foreigners there working with the occupiers don't like it, they should leave, it's as simple as that.

from all the sources i've read - they were not mercenaries, they were contractors hired to work as security for certain people and they were clothed in civilian clothing (not military uniform).

Was this a preplanned attack or was it just a random attack? Because if it was pre-planned, then their history of being in the army, who they were working for etc, influenced the attack.

And if they're carrying guns (even if they don't use them) they are still valid targets in my view. If you don't want to be involved or be at risk, don't be in Iraq. It is still a warzone after all.

magpie

This whole thing reminds me of those 2 British Army guys who were dragged out of their car by a mob at an IRA funeral back in the 80s.

Whatever the reasons behind the mobs motives, anyone with any empathy must have a chill going down their spine if they think what these people's last moments on earth were like, regardless of who they were or what they were doing.

Horrible stuff.

MrPinK

Originally posted by naitkris
if i was American and in the US army, i would not quit the army because i believe or do not believe it to be right to overthrow a dictator, i would just go where my country tells me and do my duty.

It's sad that some people are willing to kill for a cause they don't even believe in. "I was just following orders" has been used to justify many horrific acts in the past.

naitkris

Originally posted by MrPinK
It's sad that some people are willing to kill for a cause they don't even believe in. "I was just following orders" has been used to justify many horrific acts in the past.

indeed it is sad, but i think you misunderstood my point. i must also apologise, English is not my first language, and i may have phrased this wrong. what i am saying is, is that as someone who has signed up to do his/her duty for his country (Ireland doesnt have cumpulsory military service from what i know), he/she goes where his/her commander tells him to go and serve his her/her duty there, be it in peacekeeping for the UN or whatever... i do not mean it in the form of "go kill innocent civilians", i meant it in the way of doing ones duty as the position one is assigned to do. if you noticed, i mentioned also the case of the aid worker who would not question whether he or she believes in the war but would go to Iraq to help people as that is where he/she was assigned, if every aid worker or soldier etc. was to do as he/she pleases nobody would get any work done and there'd be no organisation to anything.... if this is how it works in Ireland, thats fine (and would explain all the strikes), but in many other countries it is not like this.

of course if i was a soldier and my commander told me to do something i felt was morally incorrect then i would disobey his order outright, this is a different matter though to what i pointed out of quitting the army as one didnt want to go to Iraq because one didnt believe in the war - i'd be more willing to go in order to do some good of the bad situation, but this is not the point, if one is in the army or aid organistation one has to be willing to take orders that are reasonable of your position, obviously killing civilians is not something reasonable of anyones position.

Johnmb

And if you are not willing to quit rather than invade another country, you have to accept that the people there are going to try their best to kill you. If you want to make money out of the situation and go to an occupied country, then you have to accept that to most of the people there, you are a legitimate target and they will try their best to kill you. The few people who are there to give aid to the people also have to accept that in a war situation, if they get in the way, they may become casualties.

Sand

civillians? are you deluded? Those were mercenaries, with guns... they were no "civillians". Any american is unwelcome in Iraq as the Iraqi people have broadly demonstrated. The american's have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to be in the country, and if they go illegally into another country they forfeit their right to live.. there are no american "civillians'" in Iraq. Certainly not those four mercenaries.

Ah, the stockholm syndrome. Pick a terrorist group, find some sympathetic angle then remove any condemnation of any act whatsoever - they could sacrifice infants on live tv to Satan and youd still find people willing to tolerate and support it. After all theres no such thing as American civillians in Iraq. Weve seen it in NI, Israel and now Iraq.

The US is in Iraq Illegally, it is not right to do anything in iraq. Any retribution that the US recives in Iraq while illegally occupying the country is justified and warranted.

Wrong. If the coalition is in Iraq illegally then why arent the cops arresting the various coalition administrations? The obvious conclusion is that it is not illegal.

And on a second note there are rules of conduct in warfare - they can be bent and interpreted but just about any interpretation forbids outright attacks on civillians, and certainly desecration of enemy bodies. Either way you look at it the perpetrators of the desecration are terrorists or war crinimals.

Thirdly youre assuming that war crinimals and terrrorists speak for the Iraqi people. Its nice that you assume that all Iraqis are terrorists. I guess that means they can all be targeted as terrorists?

It's sad that some people are willing to kill for a cause they don't even believe in. "I was just following orders" has been used to justify many horrific acts in the past.

The military isnt a democracy - it is a tool of government. When a person enters the military they accept they will risk their life in the service of their nation, as decided by their government which should in the best case be democratically elected. The military is usually forbidden from getting involved in politics to ensure that its remains the servant of the state rather than its master. As such, the army cant say "We dont feel like going because we dont agree with your policies" unless its actually willing to mutiny and stage a coup.

I was just following orders is not regarded as a valid defence afaik. Soldiers have a duty to disobey orders to commit war crimes and remove a commander who orders a war crime - and no, invading Iraq is not a war crime.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Can people please deal with the actual issue,

Sure thing. I'll give it a shot.

the only reason people seem to be able to give for the US not to go after these people is that the US has made mistakes in the past.

No offence, dave, but what thread are you reading? It certainly can't be this one if thats what your interpreting from whats been said.

Most people are objecting to the use of the word "revenge" and what it implies, as well as the initial word of how the US intend to achieve this "revenge".

Past mistakes - if and when mentioned - are generally to show there is precendent, so that when someone wishes to defend the US, the "can you give a single example where they've already....." avenue has already been shut off.

(Aside : Isn't it funny how when you don't include information, people demand it, but when you do include it, they seem to argue that its irrelevant for some reason)

If you extend this logic, practically no one should ever get arrested ever anywhere, since almost all police forces/countries etc. make mistakes.

Who has argued that the perpetrators of this crime should not be arrested nor brought to justice?

all I've said is that the US is right to go after the killers of these men, same way as that if it happened in Cork or Dublin the gardaí could go after them

Yes..and if it was doing it in a comparable manner, they would indeed be right.

But thats categorically not what the US are doing.

If it happened in Cork or Dublin, a reaction similar to the US' would be to call out the Irish Army, surround the city, seal it off and effectively declare martial law, pending a military incursion which will take unspecified steps to achieve revenge. Not justice. Revenge.

Now....if that happened in Cork or Dublin....would you be fine with it? Or would you be instead saying that it was the wrong reaction, and would probably only serve to make the problem worse, and was potentially a disaster waiting to happen...especially if there was historical precedent to show that it may not be the cleanest, most surgical type of operation which paid all due care to Human Rights etc.

Yes, I accept that the Iraqi do not have a fully functional police force, so the most appropriate response is simply not an option. That doesn't mean that any sort of reaction should be acceptable or accepted as "the next best thing", especially when politicians who should know better are talking about revenge instead of justice.

jc

Johnmb

Originally posted by Sand
Wrong. If the coalition is in Iraq illegally then why arent the cops arresting the various coalition administrations? The obvious conclusion is that it is not illegal.
So, by that reckoning, if you get away with a crime, what you did is not illegal. I can rob a bank, and as long as I either don't get caught, or prove to be too dangerous for the Garaí to do anything about it, then my robbing that bank was not illegal. Way to go with creative interpretation of the law.

And on a second note there are rules of conduct in warfare - they can be bent and interpreted but just about any interpretation forbids outright attacks on civillians, and certainly desecration of enemy bodies.
Occupying forces, whether officially part of an army or not, are considered legitimate targets in international law. Where does any of these laws forbid desecration of dead bodies?

Either way you look at it the perpetrators of the desecration are terrorists or war crinimals.
Based on what? They have every right to fight for their freedom by any means necessary.

Thirdly youre assuming that war crinimals and terrrorists speak for the Iraqi people. Its nice that you assume that all Iraqis are terrorists. I guess that means they can all be targeted as terrorists?
That's just something you are making up. Most have watched the reports and assume that the Iraqi people are speaking for themselves when they protest.

I was just following orders is not regarded as a valid defence afaik. Soldiers have a duty to disobey orders to commit war crimes and remove a commander who orders a war crime - and no, invading Iraq is not a war crime.
Invading Iraq was against international law, and if one wanted, one could very easily argue a case that the unprovoked murder of hundreds of Iraqi civilians and military personnel by carrying out an illegal invasion is in fact a war crime.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
Ah, the stockholm syndrome. Pick a terrorist group, find some sympathetic angle then remove any condemnation of any act whatsoever - they could sacrifice infants on live tv to Satan and youd still find people willing to tolerate and support it. After all theres no such thing as American civillians in Iraq. Weve seen it in NI, Israel and now Iraq.

Okay are you purposefully ignorant or do you just pretend to be? FIRSTLY, lets not IGNORE the fact that the US has no right to be in Iraq. They hae invaded the country and the people of the country are defending themselves. You can call them terrorists all you like but they are defending their country and have every right to do so. Just as the Irish had a right to fight of the British

Wrong. If the coalition is in Iraq illegally then why arent the cops arresting the various coalition administrations? The obvious conclusion is that it is not illegal.

What cops? what kind of ignorant rubbish are you spewing forth now? The Iraqi "police" that is selected trained and given power by the "coalition" military? THey are gonna go and "arrest" the coalition? Are you from planet earth? Really this kind of blatent disregard for even the most basic of facts drives me up the wall. If your gonna argue please produce something more concrete. How can you seriously say this kind of thing knowing how flawed it is? You and I BOTH know that in today's world "might makes right" policy seems to be heavily applied, despite the US and UK's invasion being illegal they get away with it because no one has the courage or will to challenge them over it as they wouldn't gain anything by it.

And on a second note there are rules of conduct in warfare - they can be bent and interpreted but just about any interpretation forbids outright attacks on civillians, and certainly desecration of enemy bodies. Either way you look at it the perpetrators of the desecration are terrorists or war crinimals.

I'm sorry the US thew the rules of conduct and warfare LONG out the window with guantanamo bay, not to mention exporting people to other countries to be tortured. So really if they don't follow these "rules of warfare" they have no right to expect the people they are invading too. Moreoever being technoligically and military advanced its easy for the US to say "we don't target civillians" nevermind the 10k+ iraqi civillians who just "died" as "casualties"... sorry but thats no excuse.

Thirdly youre assuming that war crinimals and terrrorists speak for the Iraqi people. Its nice that you assume that all Iraqis are terrorists. I guess that means they can all be targeted as terrorists?

NO, YOU are the one that is assuming that any Iraqi who opposes US occupation is a terorist and a war criminal. The war criminal's are the US that are illegally occupying another country without a UN mandate. They are the terrorists for exploiting and terrorising the people of Iraq. As far as I'm concerned the people fighting the american forces within Iraq have any means necessary because the US invaded them. They are freedom fighters. If you want to call them terrorists and war criminals provide PROOF, not blatent generalisations that are baseless in fact.

The military isnt a democracy - it is a tool of government. When a person enters the military they accept they will risk their life in the service of their nation, as decided by their government which should in the best case be democratically elected. The military is usually forbidden from getting involved in politics to ensure that its remains the servant of the state rather than its master. As such, the army cant say "We dont feel like going because we dont agree with your policies" unless its actually willing to mutiny and stage a coup.

Actually your wrong. Every person has free will, and if they disagree with the actions of their state they have the right to resign from the army. If they don't do so they are willing participants, and so they deserve no sympathy whatsoever.

I was just following orders is not regarded as a valid defence afaik. Soldiers have a duty to disobey orders to commit war crimes and remove a commander who orders a war crime - and no, invading Iraq is not a war crime.

Yes you actually managed to grasp a FACT for a change, WELL DONE. It is not a valid defence to say I was "just following orders". The invasion of Iraq is illegal and IS a war crime. The "coalition" had no right to invade. They invaded because they wanted to and because they are more powerful and they could. OFF COURSE they are going to say that they had the right, they are the invaders, this is what all invaders say, that does not however mean that it is so.