← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · amundsen
Thread ID: 5763 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2003-03-23
2003-03-23 17:35 | User Profile
**Rumsfeld: Iraqi Footage Violations Geneva Convention **
Reuters Sunday, March 23, 2003; 10:59 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Sunday Iraqi television footage apparently showing American prisoners of war was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
On CBS "Face the Nation," Rumsfeld was shown footage relayed by the Arabic satellite station Al-Jazeera that Iraq television claimed were captive U.S. soldiers.
"That's a violation of the Geneva Convention, those pictures you showed," Rumsfeld said of the international law on treatment of prisoners of war. He said the convention prohibits the photographing or interrogation by media of those captured in battle.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14285-2003Mar23.html]Source[/url]
When you reject abiding by the Convention for prisoners of Afghanistan [url=http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml]Source[/url] and most likely torture prioners [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/tort-d30.shtml]Source[/url]. Then you really dont have much ground to stand on when accusing others of violating the Convention.
2003-03-23 18:30 | User Profile
International Law Has Failed to Lessen Horrors of War Sunday, November 17, 2002 [url=http://www.sltrib.com/2002/nov/11172002/nation_w/17519.htm]http://www.sltrib.com/2002/nov/11172002/na...ion_w/17519.htm[/url]
BY GREG BARRETT GANNETT NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- When Mohammed al-Durra's body went limp in the clutches of his father two years ago, no one could say for whom the fatal bullet was intended. The 12-year-old Palestinian boy had already been shot in the knee and his father was later hospitalized with eight gunshot wounds. If not for French TV news, which rolled videotape as Mohammed and his father cowered, unarmed, against a cinderblock wall near a gunfight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians, chances are Mohammed would have been just another statistic in the Middle East tally of civilian casualties. But with the world watching, the international community felt compelled to respond.
Resolutions: The United Nations invoked the Fourth Geneva Convention and its protocols, intended to protect civilians from international armed conflicts. More than 120 U.N. member countries adopted resolutions demanding Israel stop its reckless use of machine guns, tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships to strike back at Palestinian territories after suicide bombings. The resolutions had no visible effect. Israel apologized for accidentally killing Mohammed but said it had a right to defend itself. In the two years since then, more than 250 Palestinian children and 70 Israeli children have died in the Middle East. The Middle East conflict is a particularly grim reminder of the failings of international law, legal experts say. Those failings have acquired a new significance since the 1990s, when the vast majority of people killed in armed conflicts were noncombatants, a trend that war scholars say began with World War II.
'No Political Will': There was no outcry in the late 1970s to prosecute Cambodia's Pol Pot, the now-deceased leader of the Khmer Rouge, for killing more than 1 million people -- mostly civilians -- who made up about one-sixth of Cambodia's population. "There was just no political will" for it, said Anthony Clark Arend, co-author of International Law and the Use of Force. That same lack of will allowed Uganda's Idi Amin to kill hundreds of thousands of his people, and the United Nations had little to say about Iraq's use of chemical and biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. "The Western states were not too troubled that Iran was attacked by Iraq. . . . It was right after the Iran hostage crisis with the United States," said Arend, a Georgetown University professor. Military leaders in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were charged with war crimes under the authority of the U.N. Security Council in connection with genocide campaigns that killed more than a million civilians, but legal scholars say international laws governing genocide and war crimes are enforced inconsistently.
"Still Primitive": "Interna- tional law is still a primitive legal system and as a consequence it is difficult to enforce violations anywhere in the world," Arend said. "There simply is no centralized sanctioning authority with the same enforcement capability of a domestic legal system."
Despite the humanitarian ambitions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its protocols, its wording presents a vague notion of fair play. Convention law "offers a loophole big enough to drop a nuclear weapon through," Lt. Col. Kenneth Rizer of the U.S. Air Force wrote last year in an online Department of Defense journal.
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bars willful killing of civilians "if not justified by military necessity."
But it fails to define military necessity. That means international law might allow for the killing of civilians and the destruction of their property if it is deemed imperative for victory, Rizer said.
"In simpler terms, military necessity means that if one is justified in going to war, one is justified in doing what is necessary to win," he wrote last year in Air and Space Power Chronicles.
In World War I, 5 percent of all direct casualties were civilian, according to Simon Chesterman in his book, Civilians in War. In World War II, civilian casualties amounted to roughly 50 percent of the total.
During the 1990s, most casualties of armed conflicts were civilians. In some cases, including Rwanda, civilians made up 90 percent of casualties, said Chesterman, a senior associate at the International Peace Academy in New York, an independent security research organization.
Although Chesterman said some scholars dispute his numbers, no one denies the trend.
Collateral damage is endemic to modern war, where assaults rain from the sky and legitimate targets are loosely defined, said Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University. Nagy claims the U.S. Air Force violated international law with its bombing of Baghdad in 1991. Protocol 1, added to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, forbids the destruction of civilian infrastructure, but the allied assault on Iraq began with bombing raids on electrical grids that supported civilian and military needs. The Pentagon defined the grids as legitimate dual-use targets. "The electrical attacks proved extremely effective," reads a 53-page U.S. Air Force analysis dated May 20, 1998. "The loss of electricity shut down the capital's water treatment plants and led to a public health crisis from raw sewage dumped in the Tigris River." Rizer, assessing the Baghdad bombing, wrote that the raid's legitimacy "is very subject to interpretation." Arend agreed. "Dual-use [targets] are sufficiently ambiguous," he said. "It's difficult to say if it is clearly prohibited by customary international law." The U.N. Security Council can order economic sanctions, such as those applied to Iraq in 1990. It can authorize the use of military force, such as Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and it can create ad hoc international war crime tribunals. "The United Nations in general is a very weak body; it is only the Security Council that has power," said Derek Jinks, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law who worked for The Hague prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia. But a single veto by any of the five permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom -- quashes any action. "One friend, if it is the right friend, can translate to immunity from any kind of coercion from the Security Council," Jinks said. The most striking example of that, he said, is Israel's friendship with the United States, which has allowed Israeli tanks to plow through Palestinian neighborhoods in search of suicide bombers. The United States has long supported Israel's right to fight terrorism and refuses to place blame in the Middle East conflict. In U.N. resolutions critical of Israel, only two nations -- Israel and the United States -- have consistently abstained or voted nay. "The United States has an idiosyncratic view -- shared by Israel -- of what is a proportionate" military response, Jinks said. "The view is that any use of force necessary to minimize casualties on your side is the proportionate use of force, even if it includes heavy civilian casualties." Like the Palestinian ambulance worker who was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers when he attempted to rescue Mohammed al-Durra and his father. Like the 10-year-old Palestinian boy felled by a single rifle shot the next day near the same spot in the Gaza Strip after throwing a rock at Israeli soldiers. Like the other 14 Palestinian children killed in the crossfire within 72 hours of Mohammed's death. The United Nations, sounding like an exasperated parent, has issued a dozen resolutions over the past two years saying it "condemns," "further condemns," "reaffirms," "also reaffirms," "calls upon," "calls once more upon" Israel to stop what it deems the mistreatment of Palestinian refugees. Yet bloodshed on both sides of the conflict continues unabated. A remedy could rest with the newly created International Criminal Court, an offshoot of the ad hoc tribunals of the United Nations. It counts 139 signatories -- the United Kingdom, France and Germany among them -- and is being hailed by the United Nations and human rights groups as the future of global justice. It is the world's first permanent international court to specifically address genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and is expected to begin operating in The Hague next year. Yet even as the White House plans to pursue U.N.-backed war crime charges against the Iraqi regime for atrocities alleged against Iraqi Kurds, it refuses to endorse the new court. The United States wants its soldiers and civilians exempted from the court because it fears politically motivated war crime charges. The White House is asking more than 100 nations to sign bilateral agreements that promise to never deliver an American to the international court.
2003-03-23 19:32 | User Profile
You're right, amundsen. I laughed when I read that the U.S. is whining about "international law," in light of its recent behavior with the UN and such leading up to this war, which essentially is a "war of aggression."
2003-03-23 21:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Mar 23 2003, 13:30 ** If not for French TV news, which rolled videotape as Mohammed and his father cowered, unarmed, against a cinderblock wall near a gunfight between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians, chances are Mohammed would have been just another statistic in the Middle East tally of civilian casualties. **
I think the smear campaign against France started not too long after this atrocity was reported.
The Media has hideously degraded the French to the point where there's probably some Zionist plotting "regime change" in Paris to fix there Camebert ass*s.
As for the US Government trying claim any moral high ground in treatment of POW's and/or claiming the appearance of international law breaches by the Iraqis is terribly foolish and absurd. It will damn this administration in the eyes of the world even further than its done already. What would the US do anyway? Send them to the Hague? No, we'll send them to the grave.
China invades Taiwan, North Korea invades South Korea, Pakistan and India invade Kashimir, Israel obliterates Palestinians. How would these possible aggressive actions differ from the current US war on Iraq? What moral leg can the US stand on in any possibl future incidents?
The US government has set the stage for WWIII. The War on Iraq, as overwhelmingly as our military might is, will no doubt unwind this country and take the rest of the world with it.
2003-03-24 02:25 | User Profile
I am getting sick of the Necons silly nonsense.
Rumsfeld: Iraqi Footage Violations Geneva Convention
I fail to see anything wrong with press talking to POW's.
Rumsfeld rejected abiding by the Convention for prisoners of Afghanistan. Remember Rumsfeld also called the Iraqis setting a very small number of their own oil well on fire to slow the US Army a "War Crime."
2003-03-24 03:09 | User Profile
Rumsfeld is full of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
** Donald Rumsfeld says that this violation will be prosecuted. In a news conference, he also said that the US would never show Iraqi POWs on TV.
However, Fox News filled the airwaves on Saturday showing Iraqi POWs, up close and looking humiliated. Military handlers guided the camera crew through the groups of POWs.
url: [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=6908]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=29&t=6908[/url] **
Also see:
Video of American POWs [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=6917]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=ST&f=5&t=6917[/url]
2003-03-24 03:25 | User Profile
I do not think letting the press see POW's is breaking the Geneva Convention article 13 forbids the displaying of POWs for the purposes of "public curiosity."
This is ban on such things as making them march in Parades and putting them in a cage in the town square. I do not keeping them away from the press was what the writters of the Geneva Convention had in mind when they banned the displaying of POWs as a public curiosity.
Any thoughts?
2003-03-25 01:36 | User Profile
**Red Cross Protests Iraq's Abuse of American POWs ... The display of American prisoners of war on Iraqi television is a violation of the Third Geneva Convention, a spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross said today. ... Doumani said the Red Cross was also looking into photos and videotape of Iraqi POWs shown by Western and other media outlets.
"We're very concerned that all parties stick to the rules," she said.
"Our main concern at this stage is that we get access to all POWs, those being held by the Iraqis, the Americans and the British," she said.
[url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/24/93340.shtml]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../24/93340.shtml[/url] **
2003-03-25 03:55 | User Profile
Faust,
I guess that I am glad to see the POW'S on tv, at least when the hostilities cease, the Iraqi's will not be able to deny that they ever had them as was seen in Korea and Vietnam.
2003-03-25 04:07 | User Profile
I suspect the POWs were put on TV simply to prove that Iraq has them. If that is what they're doing then it does not violate international agreements. And, I would think the parents would be glad to know their sons are still alive. And, as already noted, it is laughably hypocritical of the US to complain that someone else is breaking international law.
2003-03-25 04:45 | User Profile
Hello, and Guten Tag/Abend,
Regardless of the origin of the current conflict in Iraq, the abuse of P.O.W.s is a flagarent misuse of power, and defeats the purpose of those reponsible for this shameful spectacle.
To use P.O.W.s in this fashion indicates weakness on the part of the Iraqi military.
I cannot agree with America and Britain employing their troops in order to fight and die for the benefit of another country that has undue influence on American internal and foreign policy.
Nevertheless, the treatment of American soldiers captured can be an indicator of the people involved in this worthless enterprize.
2003-03-25 06:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mentzer@Mar 25 2003, 04:45
Regardless of the origin of the current conflict in Iraq, the abuse of P.O.W.s is a flagarent misuse of power, and defeats the purpose of those reponsible for this shameful spectacle.
They are not POWs, but criminals. Can you have POWs in an illegal war? The video was merely a "perp walk".
2003-03-25 07:19 | User Profile
Hi,
I could never regard British or American professional soldiers as criminals. It is politicians that decide where these men of courage and fighting ability are to wage war. The troopers are not politicians. They are ordinary, though exceptional, people. Do not blame them for the mistakes of others, who should know better.
The military, British or American, should not, and cannot be, accused of instigating this conflict - the orders come from politicians.
This is a pointless war encouraged by a third party. Don't blame the troops that have to do the fighting and the dying.
Mentzer.
2003-03-25 14:10 | User Profile
Blond Knight,
I agree, you are most Right! David Hackworth said something like that last night.
I guess that I am glad to see the POW'S on tv, at least when the hostilities cease, the Iraqi's will not be able to deny that they ever had them as was seen in Korea and Vietnam.
As I said Before:
I do not think letting the press see POW's is breaking the Geneva Convention article 13 forbids the displaying of POWs for the purposes of "public curiosity."
This is ban on such things as making them march in Parades and putting them in a cage in the town square. I do not keeping them away from the press was what the writters of the Geneva Convention had in mind when they banned the displaying of POWs as a public curiosity.
2003-03-25 14:27 | User Profile
Any thoughts?
Your interpretation makes perfect sense, Faust.
2003-03-25 14:29 | User Profile
Guten Morgen/Tag, Herr Mentzer.
**I could never regard British or American professional soldiers as criminals. It is politicians that decide where these men of courage and fighting ability are to wage war.
The troopers are not politicians. They are ordinary, though exceptional, people. Do not blame them for the mistakes of others, who should know better. **
Agreed.
2003-03-25 17:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mentzer@Mar 25 2003, 01:19 ** This is a pointless war encouraged by a third party. Don't blame the troops that have to do the fighting and the dying. **
Don't blame those soldiers pumping tear gas into the home of the Branch Davidians. Oh no, it's all the fault of the politicians that ordered them to commit the atrocities. Mr. Weaver, don't blame Horiuchi, he was just following orders.
Sorry, but that's crap. When an individual voluntarily joins the armed forces do they leave their conscience at home to become some kind of amoral automaton? Are they no longer capable of making moral choices like most humans on the planet? I think they are, therefore they cannot escape moral condemnation from this or any other unjust action.
Now if they were drafted, then it is an entirely different situation. But that's just not the case here.
2003-03-25 17:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Mar 25 2003, 12:06 ** Don't blame those soldiers pumping tear gas into the home of the Branch Davidians. Oh no, it's all the fault of the politicians that ordered them to commit the atrocities. Mr. Weaver, don't blame Horiuchi, he was just following orders.
Sorry, but that's crap. When an individual voluntarily joins the armed forces do they leave their conscience at home to become some kind of amoral automaton? Are they no longer capable of making moral choices like most humans on the planet? I think they are, therefore they cannot escape moral condemnation from this or any other unjust action.
Now if they were drafted, then it is an entirely different situation. But that's just not the case here. **
It wasn't necessarily soldiers pumping CS into the Waco church. Horiuchi was and still is FBI. There is a difference between Federal employees and soldiers.
I think soldiers who volunteer have at least a right to expect that they won't be used in an unConstitutional manner- police actions, "pre-emptive" foreign meddling, etc. Whether they actually SHOULD expect that these days is debatable, but I think it would be unfair to say that the average volunteer goes into the armed forces with a desire or inclination to visit foreign countries, meet new and exciting people, and kill them for the greater glory of our new imperialistic paradise.
Once they have entered the service, they are required to perform the duties they are assigned; not only that, but their training is structured from day one to remove as many barriers as possible they may have to following orders. If they do not follow orders in times of war, they know very well they face a possible death sentence.
I'm not saying that they have no choice but to perform immoral actions, but to compare a soldier who has chosen to go into the service for his country- and is then ordered to participate in an immoral action- to a Federal at-will employee who risks only his pension (in the case of Horiuchi, not even that apparently) is overstating the case, in my opinion.
2003-03-25 17:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Mar 25 2003, 11:19 I'm not saying that they have no choice but to perform immoral actions, but to compare a soldier who has chosen to go into the service for his country- and is then ordered to participate in an immoral action- to a Federal at-will employee who risks only his pension (in the case of Horiuchi, not even that apparently) is overstating the case, in my opinion.
Horiuchi was only an example and it may well be overstating the case. But claiming the military was 'not necessarily' pumping CS gas into the Davidian's home is hair-splitting, to say the least.
We can argue over the examples, but the principle remains clear. I disagree with you. The soldiers joined of their own free will. They don't have an excuse and obviously a soldier can disobey their superiors and not be executed, witness Texas' own Michael New.
2003-03-25 21:51 | User Profile
I also like Faust's take on the Geneva Convention. Showing POWs on TV is not inherently insulting or demeaning in any way. If they showed them stark naked on TV, I could understand the problem. Besides, we've shown Iraqi POWs on our news broadcasts. Hell, this entire war is widely regarded as a war crime!
As to the responsibility of the US soliders who are fighting in this criminal war, I must admit to having difficulty with this question. Culpability for a given act clearly depends upon one's awareness of its wrongfulness. Some members of the military undoubtedly bear great responsibility for this war: e.g., Powell; PsyOps specialists; intelligence personnel who know the truth but don't speak out when they see it being manipulated in the press; and many or most of the officers. As for the grunts, most of them probably aren't terribly bright and are little more than attack dogs. Therefore, I can't really blame them, but neither can I respect them, and I can't in good conscience wish them success. I can only wish that they will be recalled to the USA, which ain't gonna happen for a while.
2003-03-25 22:53 | User Profile
Not to undermine your credibility or anything, Tex, but - well said! You too, Faust.
Consider the classic example, ye old War of Northern Aggression. How American was it to "support tha troops" in killing other Americans for attempting to constitutionally govern themselves? Some Americans not only didn't support them, but therein joined in the fight against them. No doubt there were many in the north who withheld their "support" for them as well. Why? Because it was so clearly detrimental to us all in the long run. As is this.
2003-03-25 23:43 | User Profile
JRC> ** They are not POWs, but criminals. Can you have POWs in an illegal war? The video was merely a "perp walk".**
Tex> ** ***Sorry, but that's crap. When an individual voluntarily joins the armed forces do they leave their conscience at home to become some kind of amoral automaton? Are they no longer capable of making moral choices like most humans on the planet? I think they are, therefore they cannot escape moral condemnation from this or any other unjust action.
Now if they were drafted, then it is an entirely different situation. But that's just not the case here...***
We can argue over the examples, but the principle remains clear. I disagree with you. The soldiers joined of their own free will. They don't have an excuse and obviously a soldier can disobey their superiors and not be executed, witness Texas' own Michael New.**
Angler> ** As for the grunts, most of them probably aren't terribly bright and are little more than attack dogs. Therefore, I can't really blame them, but neither can I respect them, and I can't in good conscience wish them success. I can only wish that they will be recalled to the USA, which ain't gonna happen for a while.**
From my book Money and American Memory: Myths of Virtue, Valor and Patriotism [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0788184792/qid%3D1022776139/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/102-9675860-7271313]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/078...9675860-7271313[/url]
1-800-782-3833> **Quoting James Webb approvingly, Mr. Shields noted a representative armed force would have people going through the roof. The attitude of the Washington elite was that the enlisted were foolish enough to take the money which made them volunteers. So if necessary, they "should shut up and die".
From the Washington Post Richard Cohen wrote of those serving in American military forces that none was a draftee, and some had volunteered for especially hazardous duty. Mr. Cohen saw these people as being no different from policemen or firemen who sometimes risk and lose their lives doing what ordinary citizens did not want to do themselves. These volunteers have been paid to be in "Harm's way", and these men whether they knew it or not were agents of American foreign policy. Soldiers not allowed to fight should not be sent out of the United States in the first place. (Cohen, a loathsome Jew fanned public opinion, but ran away from his war.)
His stablemate, Mr. William Safire, had lashed Colin Powell for calling off the war against Iraq too soon. Cries asking to bring the "boys" home upset Mr. Safire. These soldiers were not boys. These were men and women who volunteered to be hired and trained to kill other people to defend our national interests. At the core of the new impotence of America has been the unwillingness of much of its citizenry to bleed and finance what Mr. Safire considered the necessary international order to protect self-rule beyond our borders. These were angry, nasty words coming from a part of America where lack of courage has been the rule.
From the New Republic came supporting voices. Mr. Mickey Kaus reminded readers that soldiers who died in Somalia had volunteered for dangerous duty. They knew that they were searching for danger. Mr. Kaus quoted a predecessor, Michael Kinsley, who urged special expeditionary forces composed of volunteers for each particular military mission. In the accepted superior manner of his kind Mr. Kaus asserted that if today's soldiers did not comprehend that they were to serve as executors of the nation's conscience as well as its national security, then the soldiers of tomorrow would understand.
Quoting General Sherman, Colonel Summers did not believe that the infantry of the United States should be committed lightly. These volunteers were not a foreign legion, but they were the sons and daughters of Americans. Back in 1863 in the midst of the Civil War the 26th North Carolina Regiment passed a resolution demanding the blood and thunder men should practice what they preached by getting into the ranks and fighting. If they did not, whether saint or sinner, they should hold their tongues. Colonel Summers thought it appropriate that the "blood and thunder men" of today who were anxious to intervene to set the world right could form fighting brigades like the Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War. These brigades would be flushed out with fighting companies from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Republic and other jingoist organs. The infantry of the United States should be reserved for the vital interests of the United States. Sentiments of Colonel Summers have long been missing from the organs of the East Coast elite, most especially from the media controlled by Jews.
Even General Colin Powell commented on the critics of the military who complained the military had a "no can do" attitude and questioned if America were getting a "fair return on its defense investment". What riled General Powell was a caustic comment by the editorial board of the New York Times on the efficacy of his military. General Powell remarked that the critics who shouted for imprudent reductions would gut the military. He desired decisive means and attacks, and he became extremely upset when civilian experts championed "surgical" bombings or limited attacks. When their wishes
Contrary to the gibberish of the William Buckleys and their craven kin, when the drums of war started beating in August 1990, enlistments for the army went down. Army recruiters fell short of their goal by 28 percent in September, 24 percent in October and 32 percent in November. One recruiting sergeant confessed that the crisis in the Gulf was making it harder to get enlistments because "people don't want to go to war". Shields did ask how a free market type like Cheney and Bush could involuntarily extend those who had fulfilled their commitment while not involuntarily drafting others. Shields quoted approvingly from a novel by James Webb in which one Marine thought of the American reaction to Vietnam as one of unconcern: "It's like nothing really happened, except to other people. It isn't touching anybody except us". Later when the air war started, Shields noted House Democrats representing blue collar workers voted to continue the blockade and embargo of Iraq instead of going to war. Shields faulted the leadership of the country who would send men to die, but refuse to ask the rest of the populace for additional taxes on gasoline and other sacrifices. This reminded Shields too much of the Vietnam War. Though this time the elite did not openly display scorn or contempt for soldiering. They would respect the warriors and send esteem and compliments to them. They would do anything, but send them their children. Among the blue collars there was no great faith in the national leadership. There was doubt if the war in the Persian Gulf qualified as a "good war". Like a good Roman Catholic Mr. Shields believed the strength of a nation to be measured by its willingness for individual sacrifice for the common good.**
Once again I note members of this forum asserting moral superiority. I question how many have ever been in a life threatening situation. Most, if not all, people will do anything to insure the survival of their buddies or theirselves. Pleasing such demanding individuals as yourselves is the furthest thing on their minds. The Iraqi duplicity in faking surrender was to make the Marines very skeptical of accepting prisoners. This skepticism would probably lead to killings. Iraqi leaders then would tell their soldiers so that they would have great doubts about surrendering and much more apt to fight. War is not a game; nor is it for the faint of heart. If some of you experienced it, your opinions just may change.
My guess is that most do not come from affluent families and enlisted for financial aid for education. As you may guess this may be a big reason Jews do not enlist. This is also why people such as Col. David Hackworth want a draft so that people in the House or Senate and the wealthy would have to consider their own. However, I suspect their money and influence would prevail.
2003-03-26 00:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Mar 25 2003, 12:33 ** We can argue over the examples, but the principle remains clear. I disagree with you. The soldiers joined of their own free will. They don't have an excuse and obviously a soldier can disobey their superiors and not be executed, witness Texas' own Michael New. **
Easy, Tex. These are your examples here, not mine. I'm not arguing with you over them- I'm saying that they flat out do not apply. The federal agents were certainly given a choice, and their actions were immoral start to finish in both cases. Clearly Weaver and Waco were wrong from the planning stage on.
The military is a different case, when talking about the fighting units. You didn't take up my point- these guys have a right to expect that they will not be used in actions that violate the Constitution, from the time they enlist on through their hitch. Being in Iraq certainly doesn't qualify them for the same amount of contempt that should be heaped on Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush and on down the line.
Blame to me means taking a clear-headed look at who made the decisions to send American troops. Support in this conflict means doing everything we legally can as citizens to get them out of there before another soldier or Iraqui citizen dies.
I have a strong sense also that the actions taken against Michael New after his helmet protest won't be repeated. These aren't Third Way ideologues in charge- they're rapacious bastards with long-planned global ambitions. I'm betting our soldiers are being told those fact, in subtle ways.
2003-03-26 02:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Mar 25 2003, 17:43 ** Once again I note members of this forum asserting moral superiority. I question how many have ever been in a life threatening situation. Most, if not all, people will do anything to insure the survival of their buddies or theirselves. Pleasing such demanding individuals as yourselves is the furthest thing on their minds....
War is not a game; nor is it for the faint of heart. If some of you experienced it, your opinions just may change. **
I have not been in any wars, but I was the victim of a serious, unprovoked assault at the age of 12. A guy in his late teens or early twenties beat me up with what looked like the wooden handle of a sledgehammer. I spent over nine months recovering from the broken bones. The worst injuries were to my right arm, which I used to deflect blows aimed at my head. My arm was broken in multiple places almost completely through the bone during the attack. I was also hit in the torso several times, and that made running away immensely painful, although I did manage to do so. Anyway, hopefully my having been the victim of what was essentially an attempted murder at the ripe old age of 12 qualifies me to express my views on the war.
I think you may have misunderstood my previous post. When I said that infantrymen tend not to be very bright, that statement was only based on the fact that most Americans in general tend not to be very bright, and combat troops are overwhelmingly young and uneducated to boot. Thus, through no real fault of their own, they are lacking in perspective. They are being used as disposable tools -- attack dogs -- for an unworthy cause, and that merits sympathy rather than condemnation. It is their senior leaders who are guilty, since they are privvy to the lies and half-truths that are being used to drum up support for the war. And the most guilty of all are the politicians and behind-the-scenes power brokers who started this war of Zionist conquest in the first place.
Again, even though I have trouble thinking of the rank-and-file military guys as being blameworthy for their own lack of understanding, that doesn't mean I should applaud them for that ignorance or hope that they're successful in this crime they're being manipulated into committing.
Would my opinion change if I had been in a war? Nope. If anything, I believe it would strengthen my opposition to an unjustified war. I'd probably join these guys, in fact: [url=http://www.veteransforpeace.org/]http://www.veteransforpeace.org/[/url]
2003-03-26 03:19 | User Profile
U.S. Demands Iraqis 'Fight Fair'
by Marc Moran
Loaded: 3/25/2003
(Reuters) -- After nearly a week of fierce combat, U.S. military leaders have begun to voice concerns the Iraqi military is fighting "an unfair war."
"We came into this thing with the intention of crushing the opposition and seeing them surrender by the boatload. They have not complied and we are getting a little frustrated by their behavior. In fact, several units have actually come under fire by the enemy and to be frank, we are not prepared for that kind of hostility," said General Tommy Franks, commander of the forces deployed in the Gulf.
What looked like a cakewalk on the planning tables in Washington has turned into a full-blown military conflict in the region. It has left countless American and British soldiers either wounded, captured, or killed by an enemy that up until a week ago was barefoot, illiterate, and ready to turn tail and run. Once the actual campaign began however, things took a sudden and unpredictable turn for the worse.
"I couldn't believe it," said Lt. Colonel ShaneeKwa Washington-Mojujimbo of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "The mans told me dat dis would be a slam dunk and now I's a POW. I didn't sign up fo dis sht, home slice. My babie's daddy gots to get paid. How I be talkin' wif him now? Dat Iraqi done took my cell, yo. Somebody owes me some repamarations and sht." Her Iraqi captors were only too happy to replace the ball gag following our interview.
Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated that President Bush was upset by recent developments in the region, particularly the fact that the Iraqi people were unhappy about being bombed and shot. He was unable to make a comment however, due to an unfortunate 'pretzel incident.'
"The President has said repeatedly that if any Iraqi soldier actually shoots back, he will be held accountable for war crimes. This isn't the kind of war where a nation can claim self-defense as a self-defense. We have received numerous reports of civilians shooting American troops who have shelled their villages and blown their children to bits. What they don't understand is that we are killing them in order to liberate them from a cruel tyrant who has no respect for their right to access pornography on the web and eat at Mickey D's. If we don't replace their current dictator with one of our own choosing, then democracy is a sham."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the enemy was inflicting serious casualties on American forces because they weren't dressed properly.
"We have said, from the beginning, that if they intend to fight, then they cannot hide behind rocks and trees or dig ditches and foxholes to hide in. This neutralizes our space-age technology and costs us a lot of money. In fact, from this point forward, regardless of who fights us, we expect them to dress up like the game pieces in Stratego. The officers must wear ostrich plumes and those big old Napolean hats and the spies must have top hats and monocles and look very sinister. Otherwise the world's most intelligent soldiers won't recognize them as a threat."
Field commanders have pointed out that the Iraqi opposition has been much tougher than expected, using such techniques as hiding and being really, really quiet.
"I called in an artillery strike on one group and they just ran away instead of standing there and taking it like men. How do you fight an enemy like that? This is not Space Invaders, I can tell you that right now," commented a defiant platoon leader from the 101st Airborne Division not long before his capture.
"We are dealing with an enemy that hasn't got the first concept of 'Shock and Awe' bombing and the proper response to it. They scurry into prepared defensive positions and then they come back out and fight. We tried to let them know that we are their true friends and when that didn't work, we bombed their towns and cities, burning their loved ones to death. We've done everything possible to show our love and compassion short of torture and for some reason they don't believe us. A lot of the girls in my unit are starting to get depressed and cranky and I don't blame them. You expect the enemy to just surrender like we were told, and what happens? Conflict," said one squad leader who refused to give his/her name.
The U.S. has appealed to the UN to try and talk some sense into the Iraqi regime. They insist that those who resist follow a strict code of conduct, very much like the one outlined by Bill Cosby in the comedy routine, "Flip Of The Coin."
"We think that it is only fair that since they have the home-court advantage, as it were, that they must stand out in the open, wear bright colors, surrender if we see them first and not use live ammo. It's bad enough we are going to miss the NCAA Final Four, to do so and be shot in the head is more than we are willing to accept. They need to get over the fact that we are invading their country without provocation and just lay back and enjoy it. Know what I mean, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?"
Yeah, we think we get the picture.
MARC MORAN
[url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1140]http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/sho...sp?essayID=1140[/url]
2003-03-26 03:46 | User Profile
Ruffin, that has got to be one of the funniest damn things I've read in a long time! Thanks for posting it.
2003-03-26 04:51 | User Profile
Yes, I thought so too. Timely as well. For all we know, Mr. Moran may be food searching these deep dark halls of paleocondom.
2003-03-26 16:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Mar 25 2003, 21:19 "I couldn't believe it," said Lt. Colonel ShaneeKwa Washington-Mojujimbo of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. "The mans told me dat dis would be a slam dunk and now I's a POW. I didn't sign up fo dis sht, home slice. My babie's daddy gots to get paid. How I be talkin' wif him now? Dat Iraqi done took my cell, yo. Somebody owes me some repamarations and sht." Her Iraqi captors were only too happy to replace the ball gag following our interview. **
Oh, man. I had to wipe away tears from laughing at that so hard. Hilarious!
:lol:
2003-03-26 18:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Mar 25 2003, 18:07 **Easy, Tex. These are your examples here, not mine. I'm not arguing with you over them- I'm saying that they flat out do not apply. The federal agents were certainly given a choice, and their actions were immoral start to finish in both cases. Clearly Weaver and Waco were wrong from the planning stage on.
The military is a different case, when talking about the fighting units. You didn't take up my point- these guys have a right to expect that they will not be used in actions that violate the Constitution, from the time they enlist on through their hitch. Being in Iraq certainly doesn't qualify them for the same amount of contempt that should be heaped on Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush and on down the line.
Blame to me means taking a clear-headed look at who made the decisions to send American troops. Support in this conflict means doing everything we legally can as citizens to get them out of there before another soldier or Iraqui citizen dies. **
No problem, brother. I did not mean to sound harsh. My writing skills unfortunately do not allow for the expression of nuanced emotion. I don't have any desire to go to the mat over this. Thinking a bit further on the subject, I see the points made about the front-line soldier being susceptible to propaganda. Indeed, like most Americans, evidently.
So I'll say I support the troops by advocating bringing them home and stationing them on our southern border. There they can live in a nice climate, eat plenty of Mexican food, drink tequila, listen to good country music and keep up their sharpshooting skills, all the while performing commendable duty guarding against Latino invasion. How's that?