US used white phospherus on civilians in Fallujah

Moriarty

Bloodychancer wrote:

Well perhaps you should research the US armies History including recent it might dent your faith in the basic humanity of people trained to Kill.

Heh. Of course if they're trained to kill they're inhuman monsters. We can't have people getting the idea that troops are actually people too. Heavens no.

Bloodychancer wrote:

I presume you have heard of My Lai in vietnam..

Different war, different army, different era. It's telling that it's nearly always My Lai that's wheeled out aswell. It is not symptomatic of the state of the current armed forces in the US.

Bloodychancer wrote:

Perhaps you could explain why they wanted to kill those people or indeed the 100,000 they have killed so far in Iraq

If I'm not mistaken, the figures for direct deaths attributed to US actions is significantly smaller. Still far too large granted, but not 100,000.

Bloodychancer wrote:

And you bring what anylitical detachment

I'm not the one attempting to take the high moral ground.

<edit: cba responding to victor>

Bloodychancer

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. Of course if they're trained to kill they're inhuman monsters. We can't have people getting the idea that troops are actually people too. Heavens no.



Different war, different army, different era. It's telling that it's nearly always My Lai that's wheeled out aswell. It is not symptomatic of the state of the current armed forces in the US.



If I'm not mistaken, the figures for direct deaths attributed to US actions is significantly smaller. Still far too large granted, but not 100,000.



I'm not the one attempting to take the high moral ground.

<edit: cba responding to victor>

You just completely ignored the point you base your view that the US would not kill civilians because it would be counter productive it could not be anymore counter productive than murdering civilians in Vietnam but they still did it.
And they are doing it now in Iraq of course they have learned lessons from vietnam and controlling the media so the big difference between then and now is the absence of media reporting from the frontline
Those that can report from the frontline Al jazeera for example are treated as enemy combatants by the US who have bombed them in Afghanistan and Iraq and interned without trial one of its journalists in Gitmo

Just this week 2 men and 3 children were killed at a checkpoint not the first time this has happened
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4456244.stm

Moriarty

I've no intrest in talking to people who are only here to reproduce propaganda. That goes equally for all 'sides' by the way, in case you're feeling hard done by.

Bloodychancer

Moriarty wrote:

I've no intrest in talking to people who are only here to reproduce propaganda. That goes equally for all 'sides' by the way, in case you're feeling hard done by.

I have no idea what you are talking about and I doubt I could ever feel hard done by if you did not talk to me.
Although it is a handy way to duck away from difficult issues for you isn't it.

Sand

You just completely ignored the point you base your view that the US would not kill civilians because it would be counter productive it could not be anymore counter productive than murdering civilians in Vietnam but they still did it.

TBH, youre looking at this from two different viewpoints and youll never reach agreement on it. Moriarty seems to(imo) feel that US soldiers are human beings, with families and so on, brought up to be basically decent people. That they serve in a modern volunteer army that has signed up to the GC and enforces it at least as well as any other army out there and far better than most. Yeah, in a force composed of 100-150 thousand soldiers youre going to find some people who are reprehensible, but that is true of any group of people.

Hence he looks for proof that US soldier *did* murder civillians, as he feels theyre not predisposed to doing it.

On the other hand, you seem to (imo) believe US soldiers are rotating into Iraq from their tour of My Lai and Manic Morans (hat off to you sir on your contribution to the thread) hilarious line "Lets do them, lets do the whole ****ing village!!" is the USMC motto.

Hence you look for proof that US soldiers *didnt* murder civillians, becuase you feel they are predisposed to a good old fashioned massacre.

Just my 2 cents.

(BTW, one thing about My Lai you might want to consider is that an American chopper pilot, Hugh Thompson, seeing what was happening, landed the chopper, placed himself between vietnamese civillians hiding in a bunker and Calley's men and told his crew to "open up on the Americans" if they advanced and began evacuating some few surviving civillians to an Army hospital, returning to rescue another child on a second trip - some crazy people like to think that Hugh Thompson is more typical of the US military than William Calley. Some dont.)

Seriously. If we do not pay attention to what we know, what is the point? Why not just start a thread called "witchunt Amerca" and let people make up whatever they like to "prove" how bad those USians are by making up whatever they like.

Cmon Bonkey, theres no such thing as anti-americanism. Thats crazy talk.

Bloodychancer

Sand wrote:

TBH, youre looking at this from two different viewpoints and youll never reach agreement on it. Moriarty seems to(imo) feel that US soldiers are human beings, with families and so on, brought up to be basically decent people. That they serve in a modern volunteer army that has signed up to the GC and enforces it at least as well as any other army out there and far better than most. Yeah, in a force composed of 100-150 thousand soldiers youre going to find some people who are reprehensible, but that is true of any group of people.

Hence he looks for proof that US soldier *did* murder civillians, as he feels theyre not predisposed to doing it.

On the other hand, you seem to (imo) believe US soldiers are rotating into Iraq from their tour of My Lai and Manic Morans (hat off to you sir on your contribution to the thread) hilarious line "Lets do them, lets do the whole ****ing village!!" is the USMC motto.

Hence you look for proof that US soldiers *didnt* murder civillians, becuase you feel they are predisposed to a good old fashioned massacre.

Just my 2 cents.

(BTW, one thing about My Lai you might want to consider is that an American chopper pilot, Hugh Thompson, seeing what was happening, landed the chopper, placed himself between vietnamese civillians hiding in a bunker and Calley's men and told his crew to "open up on the Americans" if they advanced and began evacuating some few surviving civillians to an Army hospital, returning to rescue another child on a second trip - some crazy people like to think that Hugh Thompson is more typical of the US military than William Calley. Some dont.)



Cmon Bonkey, theres no such thing as anti-americanism. Thats crazy talk.

I never suggested that it was the same individual soldiers however I have not seen any evidence that the ethics of the US army have changed since Vietnam.
And the proof that US soldiers have murdered Iraqi civilians is there including the link to the BBC report of the murder of 2 men and 3 children this week.

I am well aware that it was a US gunship that ended the attack on vietnamese civilians at My Lai and I am sure that there are still good honest people in the US military today however I would have more faith in the US army if the crew of that Helicopter had been held up as heroes at the time instead of havng been vilified for their actions that day. And if the US had not tried to cover up the massacre and if William Calley had not been released from prison by President Nixon after 3 and a half years If the US really were abhored by the crimes committed that day I would suggest that More than one man would have gone to prison and they would be still there today.

Manic Moran

It is my experience that the average US Army soldier which one is likely to run into in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, or the US is generally a decent human being and barring an incomprehensible liking for a sport they call 'Football' isn't really any different from any other professional solider from any other country. Might I inquire as to how many US Servicemen Mr Chancer has encountered, particularly in stressful circumstances, that might perhaps counter such a claim? Or how many combat situations he may have been in that might put the use of WP into perspective?

Only recently in this thread has the topic of 'valid target' dropped to the level of the individual soldier. Even if, during Fallujah, the Army considered everyone in the town to be a combatant, the soldier/Marine on the ground with a rifle is still not going to go about shooting at obvious non-threats just for the sake of target practise, and they will still have some guilt at killing the wrong people, which they try to avoid.

Now, bring in the fact that whatever the engagement was, it was considered serious enough that the Marines (Or soldiers) in question, with anything from armoured vehicles and helicopters available to reduce opposition, decided to call in indirect fire which takes a couple of minutes to arrive, and you can see how, even with a desire not to kill those who don't need/deserve to be killed, the request for WP came into being. That was a lot of commas.

My Lai is not held up as an example of correct behaviour in the US Army, it's a little disingenuous to uphold it as an example of US Army thinking.

NTM

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

It is my experience that the average US Army soldier which one is likely to run into in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, or the US is generally a decent human being and barring an incomprehensible liking for a sport they call 'Football' isn't really any different from any other professional solider from any other country. Might I inquire as to how many US Servicemen Mr Chancer has encountered, particularly in stressful circumstances, that might perhaps counter such a claim? Or how many combat situations he may have been in that might put the use of WP into perspective?

Only recently in this thread has the topic of 'valid target' dropped to the level of the individual soldier. Even if, during Fallujah, the Army considered everyone in the town to be a combatant, the soldier/Marine on the ground with a rifle is still not going to go about shooting at obvious non-threats just for the sake of target practise, and they will still have some guilt at killing the wrong people, which they try to avoid.

Now, bring in the fact that whatever the engagement was, it was considered serious enough that the Marines (Or soldiers) in question, with anything from armoured vehicles and helicopters available to reduce opposition, decided to call in indirect fire which takes a couple of minutes to arrive, and you can see how, even with a desire not to kill those who don't need/deserve to be killed, the request for WP came into being. That was a lot of commas.

My Lai is not held up as an example of correct behaviour in the US Army, it's a little disingenuous to uphold it as an example of US Army thinking.

NTM

And I am sure if you had met the soldiers responsible for My Lai prior to the massacre they would have come across as "Generally decent Human Beings" that did not prevent them from behaving the way they did
I was unaware that I had to meet each of the 130,000 individual US soldiers serving in Iraq whilst they were in a stressful situation before I could post here

Now as to the rest of your post I have provided a documented case where US soldiers in a similar situation raped , tortured and murdered unarmed innocent civilians so your protestation that US soldiers would not do that rings hollow

As to their behaviour in Iraq we have seen multiple cases of cars with unarmed innocent civilians being murdered at supposed US checkpoints we have seen the treatment of prisoners in Abu Gharib just for starters so the arguement that US soldiers are all just really decent blokes does not hold any water
That is not to say that individual US soldiers might not be really nice blokes if you bumped into them in the duty free in shannon but that proves absolutely nothing as I would be just as sure if you bumped into Saddams troops that gased the Kurds they might be "generally decent Human Beings" on a personal level providing you were not kurdish

Manic Moran

I was unaware that I had to meet each of the 130,000 individual US soldiers serving in Iraq whilst they were in a stressful situation before I could post here


No, I'm just pointing out that you are painting a large number of troops with a fairly broad brush with the centerpoint of your argument being an action which happened some time before the vast majority of those servicemen were born. I believe that you are doing them a bit of a disfavour, and pointing out that a little perspective might be in order. My main bone of contention is that you appear to advocate that the Army's ethics are questionable and that generally reprehensible activities are condoned. (All present tense). The fact that Abu Ghraib was under investigation already at the time it became headline news would indicate that the Army took something of a dim view of the event. Indeed, such is the reputation within the US Army that they are crucifying soldiers for minor events that leaders are worried that their men will fail to act at the appropriate time/in the appropriate manner and put themselves at risk for fear of prosecution.

Your use of the term 'murdered', for example, implies that you may not be viewing the situation entirely dispassionately. Simple common sense indicates that if there's an Army checkpoint up ahead, and it's clearly visible, maybe complete with tanks, then you probably don't want to charge it. The term in use last I heard is 'terminally stupid,' which strikes me as rather accurate. The vast majority of Iraqis know to be sedate when around coalition troops. There's likely a reason that people tended not to run British checkpoints in Northern Ireland, for example, and that was without a suicide car bomb threat. Given the situation, and how fast these things happen, it's hard to fault soldiers for believing that they may be at risk and shooting. I find it hard to accept that anyone who rationally thinks about it can possibly condemn the policy of 'As last resort, shoot to kill.' Possibly it's a result of lack of proximate experience to put things in perspective. (Obviously, if you've been in that situation, that last comment is retracted)

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

...Indeed, such is the reputation within the US Army that they are crucifying soldiers for minor events that leaders are worried that their men will fail to act at the appropriate time/in the appropriate manner and put themselves at risk for fear of prosecution.

What kind of bollox propaganda is that?

Here's a link that says "...US troops are expected to establish that a target is hostile before engaging. But Colonel Mike Ramos told National Public Radio that US Marines have been relieved of meeting that requirement" (in Fallujah)
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1208

Memnoch

"There are no depraved acts of the most crazed psychopath that cannot be replicated by a kind, honest, family man that comes to work at his desk in the morning and has a job to do." Terry Pratchet.

I don't see how people can "trust" the U.S. to care about hurting civillians considering their track record and even recent history. Add to that the current administrations obvious propensity for lying and distorting the truth (WMD, WP, etc etc etc), the fact that they don't even bother to keep count of the civillians that they do kill "accidentaly", the same people they are supposed to be imposing democracy upon. One must be either incredibily naieve or purposefully lying to themselves if they can still trust on "faith" alone that the U.S. do their best to protect civillians.

methinks god must be talking to some people other than Dubya.

Moriarty

Apparently that whole innocent until proven guilty thing is only for certain segments of the population. The ironing is most delicious.

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

Apparently that whole innocent until proven guilty thing is only for certain segments of the population. The ironing is most delicious.

How ironic of you to be saying that .... Guantanamo Bay ring any bells? :rolleyes:

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

How ironic of you to be saying that .... Guantanamo Bay ring any bells? :rolleyes:

Heh. Missed the point. I don't usually whine on about things like that. The point is, I'm sure you do constantly about the likes of guantanamo. And that's fair enough. But if you think it should apply to the detainees in guantanamo, why shouldn't it also apply to everyone else - including US forces? It's rather inconsistent for you not to want it to apply to certain other people just because.. well.. you think they're already guilty.

RedPlanet

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. Missed the point. I don't usually whine on about things like that. The point is, I'm sure you do constantly about the likes of guantanamo. And that's fair enough. But if you think it should apply to the detainees in guantanamo, why shouldn't it also apply to everyone else - including US forces? It's rather inconsistent for you not to want it to apply to certain other people just because.. well.. you think they're already guilty.

I think the US is guilty of war crimes based upon the news reports that i see and read, and from their own words and actions.
Wheras you appear to believe whatever they say even tho they've been shown to be liars without conscience.

Moriarty

RedPlanet wrote:

I think the US is guilty of war crimes based upon the news reports that i see and read, and from their own words and actions.
Wheras you appear to believe whatever they say even tho they've been shown to be liars without conscience.

At least we've resolved for everyone how impartial and consistent your arguments are now

Bloodychancer

Moriarty wrote:

At least we've resolved for everyone how impartial and consistent your arguments are now

A little impartiality and consistency in your own arguments would not go astray
especially when you are appealing for the right to innocence until proven guilty for a country that does not respect that basic principal.

No one here to the best of my knowledge has held people for 4 years and threatened to hold them for the rest of their lives without any trial.


The main problem is that the US and its allies have sunk to the level of the people that they are supposed to be trying to rid the world off Basically everything that the US said about saddam before the war they have engaged in themselves to some degree.
Including holding people without trial
torturing prisoners
embezzling money
And whether we agree with it or not and whether it was strictly legal or not the use of "chemical agent in a civilian area".

Moriarty

Will you be protesting the Irish Defence Forces use of chemical agents outside the Dail tomorrow?

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

Heh. Missed the point. I don't usually whine on about things like that. The point is, I'm sure you do constantly about the likes of guantanamo. And that's fair enough. But if you think it should apply to the detainees in guantanamo, why shouldn't it also apply to everyone else - including US forces? It's rather inconsistent for you not to want it to apply to certain other people just because.. well.. you think they're already guilty.

the US has done pleanty to indicate it's guilt. Numerous lies and ignoring the geneva convention come to mind. Pretty much every human rights organisation out there has pointed out systemic abuse and torture by US forces.

The fact is that the U.S. refuses to submit themselves to any kind of fair process or judgement. They don't recognise the authority of the ICC. How are you going to prove someone guilty when you cannot try them in a court of law? Unfortuantely when it comes to powers that exempt themselves from all rules and law then it changes things quite a bit.

Innocent until proven guilty is fine, and i agree with that. However because the US refuse to submit themselves to any kind of outside scruitiny or process we are left with a situation where it's not possible to prosecute them in such a manner and all we then have to go by are their actions and blatent disregard for any kind of international law, including but not limited to their self-exclusion from numerous international treaties and human rights charters.

The U.S. has long proven it's guilt as a rogue state through it's actions and defiance of international standards of law and morality.

You make a false arguement when you talk about innocent until proven guilty, such an arguement can only apply when the accused is subservient to the power of the law.

Manic Moran

Not bollox, an opinion formed from personal observation.

I'm in two minds about the refusal to be a part of the ICC. It's apparently bitten the British in the arse, given that the ICC wants to try British soldiers that have already been investigated. Last I heard, the British aren't about to hand them over. (There's the odd thread on ARRSE (British Army Forum) about that one). There is less of an argument against joining the ICC if you don't have functional internal investigation systems. That, the US Army certainly has. The problem is that of perception. If the Army isn't perceived to have an effective system, people get miffed. It's stuck in a catch-22 situation: If it announces every single 15-6 investigation it has launched, (equivalent to Grand Jury), then it will be perceived as having a discipline problem, regardless of the results of that investigation. Simply shooting a civilian at a checkpoint in any situation is grounds for a 15-6, I should add. If they don't announce the investigations, such as is the current case, there is the perception that they don't have any internal systems at all.

I believe And whether we agree with it or not and whether it was strictly legal or not the use of "chemical agent in a civilian area". is very much the crux of the whole thread. The fact that you bring it up as an example indicates that you consider it a chemical weapon. It's not, and does not deserve to be placed in the same category as Abu Ghraib.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm in two minds about the refusal to be a part of the ICC. It's apparently bitten the British in the arse, given that the ICC wants to try British soldiers that have already been investigated. Last I heard, the British aren't about to hand them over. (There's the odd thread on ARRSE (British Army Forum) about that one). There is less of an argument against joining the ICC if you don't have functional internal investigation systems. That, the US Army certainly has. The problem is that of perception. If the Army isn't perceived to have an effective system, people get miffed. It's stuck in a catch-22 situation: If it announces every single 15-6 investigation it has launched, (equivalent to Grand Jury), then it will be perceived as having a discipline problem, regardless of the results of that investigation. Simply shooting a civilian at a checkpoint in any situation is grounds for a 15-6, I should add. If they don't announce the investigations, such as is the current case, there is the perception that they don't have any internal systems at all.

that's total BS, internal investigation system doesn't mean ****. While it is great for catching out low level individuals these internal systems don't do squat when it comes to exposing corrupt and illegal practices of the administration themselves, when the orders come from the top down such as abu gharib.

You're missing the whole point of why the ICC exists. It's there to try people who place themselves above international law and consensus, which is something the US and with iraq the British administration repeatedly do. Internal investigations are simply a means of brushing things under the carpet or making scapegoats of low level soldiers.

I think you've also missed the point I was trying to make, in that the US is essentially investigating itself. Hey maybe next time the Irish police catch the leader of a criminal syndicate we can ask said syndicate to conduct an internal investigation into it's practices. I'm sure they will hold all guilty parties to account and leave no stone un turned in the process.

The issue is really one of oversight. It's all very well for the ICC to be able to try african dictators, but why should western rulers be immune to this? If they have done nothing wrong then surely any investigation or trial will show that, since such courts require high level of proof.

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

I believe And whether we agree with it or not and whether it was strictly legal or not the use of "chemical agent in a civilian area". is very much the crux of the whole thread. The fact that you bring it up as an example indicates that you consider it a chemical weapon. It's not, and does not deserve to be placed in the same category as Abu Ghraib.

NTM

I suggest you re read the post I said chemical agent that is what WP is it was used as a weapon so yes it is a chemical weapon
As to whether it is strictly legal or illegal that is another question but to the perception of most people whether you like it or not the US
is behaving in a manner that bears a striking resemblance to the tyrant that they decided to overthrow
Torture
Illegal imprisonment
Murder
Chemical Weapons (ie Chemicals used as weapons)
Embezzlement
Censorship

Manic Moran

The British soldiers that the ICC wants are not the high-level people you would like to see charged, they are simple squaddies. When it comes down to moral review, as opposed to legal review, that comes under the purview of civilian jurisdiction over the military. There are systems in place in the US for that as well, usually some congressional system, I would wager.

As for the WP/Chemical issue, any munition beyond inert air-delivered bombs uses chemicals or a combination thereof in order to have an effect. for categorisation, I refer you again to the NATO manual I quoted eariler which specifically categorises WP as something other than a chemical agent. There is footage of British soldiers using WP hand grenades in 1991. Was it OK back then but not now?

As for the various different offenses, down the list:

Torture: Happened, and the military was already undertaking its own actions at the time is became public knowledge.
Illegal imprisonment: Of all your arguments, the indefinite imprisonment policy is the one I have most trouble with. The simple concept of indefinite imprisonment is one which is a bit disconcerting. That said, the civilian courts have ruled on the issue, and said that they are legal, provided certain reviews/tribunals are held. If one is willing to do a bit of stretching, there is prcedent for holding people on an indefinite basis as long as a nation is involved in military actions.
Murder: I am unaware of any murders (Or unexcusable killings) which have not already been run through the system. It's to the extent that a soldier who administered a coup-de-grace in a gesture of mercy to a wounded insurgent who was going to die shortly anyway was tried and convicted.
Chemical weapons: Well, we appear to be disagreeing on this point. You're wrong, but anyway...
Embezzlement: "To appropriate for one's own use." Where? I'm not going to argue it on the basis you may know something I don't, but I don't have any knowledge of any.
Censorship/coverups: To a point, yes. I find the official policy on not showing caskets to be completely incomprehensible. The whole 'We didn't use WP/We did use WP' was incompetence by a State Dept rep who should have stayed talking only about things he knew about. Once they asked the military types, the answer was 'Yes, what's the big deal?'
That said, given the negative spin that the media loves to put on things, I can't really say I blame them either.

NTM

Memnoch

It's great how you typed such a long post and yet actually failed to address the point I was trying to make throughout...

this is not about individual soldiers... this is about the ability for heads of government being able to be held responsible for their actions. This is about entire regime's excusing themselves from any real accountability.

In any case you seem to be purposefully ignoring the points I've been making so i'm not going to bother responding to your posts anymore since I find repetition boring and you are just going to ignore everything I say again.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote:

Simple common sense indicates that if there's an Army checkpoint up ahead, and it's clearly visible, maybe complete with tanks, then you probably don't want to charge it.

This at times has been an inter-cultural dysfunction. Pre-invasion, common sense in Iraq was that you did not slow down when you saw soldiers / security, for fear that you would be stopped / shot for "checking them out".

A Dub in Glasgo

"Basically the US military's intelligence reports painted the Iraqi citizen as a potential terrorist, so we were given carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later, which resulted in over 30 civilian deaths, over a three-month time period, caused by my platoon (a platoon is 45 marines; I was the second-in-command). During the same period we killed maybe four enemy combatants."

From the horses mouth

biko

US military is claiming that WP isn't a chemical weapon, yet they referred to WP as a chemical weapon in this document related to Sadam's assaults on Iraq's Kurdish population.

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL

Manic Moran

Memnoch, it is true that we are arguing past each other. I have less of issue with what you say, since it's a bit above my level, and slightly more subjective. I prefer to focus on things that I have some knowledge about, such as military realities and procedures and ethics of the US Army. To that, most of my points are addressed to Bloodychancer's arguments that the Army's ethics as a whole are wrong. Personally, I have a very hard time thinking that any political administration isn't corrupt to some level, but when the argument devolves down to the level of trying to distrort the Army's policies and procedures in an attempt to smear the administration, that's where I get a little irked.

The heads of government, at least in the US, are accountable to someone: The voters. Most of whom are generally honest people with a decent sense of morals. If an accounting is required, that can be done come the next election, the other party goes into office, they have their investigations, and if required, trials. Given the incredible polarisation of politics in the US, it's anyone's guess if that will happen.

biko wrote:

US military is claiming that WP isn't a chemical weapon, yet they referred to WP as a chemical weapon in this document related to Sadam's assaults on Iraq's Kurdish population.

Go back to page 6. Hobbes already made that argument, I have already put forward a counter to it.

NTM

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

Memnoch, it is true that we are arguing past each other. I have less of issue with what you say, since it's a bit above my level, and slightly more subjective. I prefer to focus on things that I have some knowledge about, such as military realities and procedures and ethics of the US Army. To that, most of my points are addressed to Bloodychancer's arguments that the Army's ethics as a whole are wrong. Personally, I have a very hard time thinking that any political administration isn't corrupt to some level, but when the argument devolves down to the level of trying to distrort the Army's policies and procedures in an attempt to smear the administration, that's where I get a little irked.

The heads of government, at least in the US, are accountable to someone: The voters. Most of whom are generally honest people with a decent sense of morals. If an accounting is required, that can be done come the next election, the other party goes into office, they have their investigations, and if required, trials. Given the incredible polarisation of politics in the US, it's anyone's guess if that will happen.



Go back to page 6. Hobbes already made that argument, I have already put forward a counter to it.

NTM

I am a fraid you do not have any counter points to the fact that the US army is murdering innocent Iraqis other than you put your faith in your believe that US soldiers are in your opinion "good guys"

I have no dispute to the fact that US soldiers are mostly "Good Guys" or consider themselves "good guys" however that is not preventing them from murdering Iraqi civilians.

The link that A dub in glasgow gave is very interesting in that it gives a guy who not only was a marine but also trained them and he admits that his unit alone killed 30 Iraqi civilians in a 3 month period during that same period they killed 4 insurgents.

other links from that site reveal how the embedded reporters are just reporting what commanding officers are telling them happened and it bears little resemblance to the truth.

I wish I had the Faith you do in US democracy unfortunately I don't perhaps if after the Vietnam war the US had held to account those people who were responsible for the murder of 3 million Vietnamese I would have faith that Bush cheney and Rumsfeld might be held to account for their crimes.
But the flaws in what passes for democracy in the US are the subject for a different thread.

Bloodychancer

Manic Moran wrote:

As for the various different offenses, down the list:

Torture: Happened, and the military was already undertaking its own actions at the time is became public knowledge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33349-2005Jan24.html

Torture is still continuing Abu Gharib only came to light because England and co were dumb enough to take pictures and send them home
The US is picking people up and flying them to third party countries to torture them the US administration wants to change the law to allow the CIA to use Torture

Manic Moran wrote:

Illegal imprisonment: Of all your arguments, the indefinite imprisonment policy is the one I have most trouble with. The simple concept of indefinite imprisonment is one which is a bit disconcerting. That said, the civilian courts have ruled on the issue, and said that they are legal, provided certain reviews/tribunals are held. If one is willing to do a bit of stretching, there is prcedent for holding people on an indefinite basis as long as a nation is involved in military actions.

However they are not just holding people from the countries involved nor are they saying they will release them when conflicts end nor are they holding them as POWs or abiding by the GCs

Manic Moran wrote:

Murder: I am unaware of any murders (Or unexcusable killings) which have not already been run through the system. It's to the extent that a soldier who administered a coup-de-grace in a gesture of mercy to a wounded insurgent who was going to die shortly anyway was tried and convicted.

Run through what system what system certainly not the ICC or any independent body

perhaps you should have another look the link provided by ADIG would be a good start but here is another case of torture and murder

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html

Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was being stubborn with his American captors, and a series of intense beatings and creative interrogation tactics were not enough to break his will. On the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, a U.S. Army interrogator and a military guard grabbed a green sleeping bag, stuffed Mowhoush inside, wrapped him in an electrical cord, laid him on the floor and began to go to work. Again.

It was inside the sleeping bag that the 56-year-old detainee took his last breath through broken ribs, lying on the floor beneath a U.S. soldier in Interrogation Room 6 in the western Iraqi desert. Two days before, a secret CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten Mowhoush nearly senseless, using fists, a club and a rubber hose, according to classified documents

Manic Moran wrote:

Chemical weapons: Well, we appear to be disagreeing on this point. You're wrong, but anyway...

No your point is that it is not an illegal Chemical weapon but it is a Chemical used as a weapon therefore it is a chemical weapon I concede that it may not appear on any banned list specifically but never the less it is a chemical weapon

Embezzlement: "To appropriate for one's own use." Where? I'm not going to argue it on the basis you may know something I don't, but I don't have any knowledge of any.[/QUOTE]


Well a little googling http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes618.html

Censorship/coverups: To a point, yes. I find the official policy on not showing caskets to be completely incomprehensible. The whole 'We didn't use WP/We did use WP' was incompetence by a State Dept rep who should have stayed talking only about things he knew about. Once they asked the military types, the answer was 'Yes, what's the big deal?'
That said, given the negative spin that the media loves to put on things, I can't really say I blame them either.[/QUOTE]


That is the tip of the iceberg the whole war has been censored


http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm