US Troops Deserting

[chuckwoww]

Full range of opinion in the comments section...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5036686.stm

[AF16]

Evel_Penivel said:

To state that innocent civilians have been killed, and on occasion even murdered, in Iraq, is hardly a revelation. That's happened in every armed conflict since Og the Caveman and his buddies raided the tribe across the valley. Every war involves horrible suffering for non-combatants, always has, probably always will.

 

But if anyone wants to put the villain's hat on the U.S., please answer the following question: In what armed conflict has one side taken more care to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. has in Iraq?

 

I in no way condone the deliberate murder of civilians by U.S. military personnel. Those responsible for such acts should be severely punished to the limit of the law. But within the context of U.S. military activity, these are extremely isolated incidents. Again the question becomes, which military forces than those of the U.S. have a better record in limiting abuse of civilians?

 

Of course, you can wiggle out of these hard questions by proclaiming there shouldn't be any wars, that it was wrong to invade Iraq, and so forth. But there are wars and the U.S. did invade Iraq. The number of civilian casualties during the invasion phase was limited for a military engagement of that size, less than a tenth of the German civilians killed in the fall of Berlin alone in 1945.

 

During the occupation of Iraq, the vast majority of civilian murders have been committed by former Iraqi secret police and Baath party members as well as the foreign jihadis fighting with the insurgency.

 

EP

 

What you are saying is that a military superior army are allowed to attack, occupy and put under financial and political alligance because they can due to their strenght afford to take some considerations.

 

Just like Israel being morraly supprior because they kill Palestinians in a slightly nicer way in their occupation of Palestinian land.

 

Fuck that, I don't accept that the US can do what they want, and It's just as large a threat to other nations as Iraq, but in other ways than a military war.

 

Sovereign nations are off limits, there has to be some form of international law, and more interests than those of the US has to be considered.

[AF16]

McBif said:

Dunno what we're all arguing about: we're all agreed that the U.S. should be held to the highest standards, nay, to the standard of absolute perfection.

 

The Baathist/Jihadi insurgency on the other hand can massacre as many innocents as is in their power to do so. We yawn. Ho hum. They're just ragheads, what do you expect? And who cares?

 

Certainly not the Swedish nationalists, the Kerry supporters, the people whose very comfortable standard of living seems to be magically divorced from oil production, ad nauseum.

 

I suspect the average U.S. serviceman in Iraq is somewhat more moved by the sight of a gutted three year-old Iraqi girl than is the average "progressive" sneering at Bush over his New York Times at Starbucks.

 

Let's cut the crap. The Americans, like the Israelis, kill innocents by mistake or as an aberration. Their enemies do it as a matter of policy.

 

One last thing: It's often struck me reading "progressive" drivel on NP that ALL us pervs would be up against the wall lickity split if our leftist betters could put us there. Why kiss their asses?

 

So let's all hug. We sometimes forget that we all have more in common than we sometimes think.

 

To the highest standard? Don't kidd your self, any standard would do. Some of us hoped we could expect more of the US than of miltitant extremist groups or at least theat people would not get off the hook when they tell how moral they are when they enter a first strike attack leading to 200 000 deaths because they need to secure the flow of oil.

[Evel_Penivel]

AF16 said:

What you are saying is that a military superior army are allowed to attack, occupy and put under financial and political alligance because they can due to their strenght afford to take some considerations.

 

That's not at all what I was saying. I think you drew some very sweeping conclusions. What I said was in military conflicts, U.S. forces haven't been more brutal towards civilians, in fact much less so, than other nations' forces in comparable conflicts.

 

 

AF16 said:

Sovereign nations are off limits, there has to be some form of international law, and more interests than those of the US has to be considered.

 

Is that an absolutely hard and fast rule or does it only apply to the U.S.? Cuba invaded Angola in 1975 with 30,000 troops and by 1988 the number had grown to 50,000. It had 24,00 troops in Ethiopia at one point, too. Was that wrong as well? What business did Cuba have in Angola or Ethiopia? How about Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia? Or Syria's occupation of Lebanon? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Or the Soviet occupation of all of East Europe after WWII? How about Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Iran and Iran's follow-up invasion of Iraq? That eight-year tussle cost between 700,000 and one million lives. And to take a more recent example, the 2,500 Australian troops now in East Timor? Were those equally wrong? Or is it sometimes right for one nation to invade and occupy another?

 

Regarding international law, just one question - who is going to enforce it?

 

EP

[Nervous_Dog]

<<one side taken more care to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. has in Iraq? >>

 

UK into the Falklands?

 

Germany into the Channel Islands?

 

I think the point is everyone accepts sadly inoccents die in war, usually by accident though, not with a gun behind the ear while holding your child.

 

DOG

[chuck6660]

AF16 said:

Evel_Penivel said:

To state that innocent civilians have been killed, and on occasion even murdered, in Iraq, is hardly a revelation. That's happened in every armed conflict since Og the Caveman and his buddies raided the tribe across the valley. Every war involves horrible suffering for non-combatants, always has, probably always will.

 

But if anyone wants to put the villain's hat on the U.S., please answer the following question: In what armed conflict has one side taken more care to avoid civilian casualties that the U.S. has in Iraq?

 

I in no way condone the deliberate murder of civilians by U.S. military personnel. Those responsible for such acts should be severely punished to the limit of the law. But within the context of U.S. military activity, these are extremely isolated incidents. Again the question becomes, which military forces than those of the U.S. have a better record in limiting abuse of civilians?

 

Of course, you can wiggle out of these hard questions by proclaiming there shouldn't be any wars, that it was wrong to invade Iraq, and so forth. But there are wars and the U.S. did invade Iraq. The number of civilian casualties during the invasion phase was limited for a military engagement of that size, less than a tenth of the German civilians killed in the fall of Berlin alone in 1945.

 

During the occupation of Iraq, the vast majority of civilian murders have been committed by former Iraqi secret police and Baath party members as well as the foreign jihadis fighting with the insurgency.

 

EP

 

What you are saying is that a military superior army are allowed to attack, occupy and put under financial and political alligance because they can due to their strenght afford to take some considerations.

 

Just like Israel being morraly supprior because they kill Palestinians in a slightly nicer way in their occupation of Palestinian land.

 

Fuck that, I don't accept that the US can do what they want, and It's just as large a threat to other nations as Iraq, but in other ways than a military war.

 

Sovereign nations are off limits, there has to be some form of international law, and more interests than those of the US has to be considered.

 

AF16,

 

Obviously you have a problem with the USA...tough!

 

As for your first question: Yes, the most powerful nation can do what they want...what are you going to do about it!

 

IF you don't accept what the US does...fine, I don't believe the US cares if you accept its action or not. It will not what it deems best for the US.

 

There is international law covering War, and the US abides by it as well as any nation. US haters (perhaps an inferiority comlpex) choose not to recognize this fact.

[Julian2]

The US has to follow the example of the British Empire at it's peak if it's going to build it's own empire.

Grow a thick skin and stop being so sensitive and accusing people of anti-Americanism when you're criticised for helping yourselves to anything on the planet that you want.

How can the rest of the 'free' world hate the US anyway we were all raised on The Brady Bunch and F Troop.

[bust]

chuck6660 said: IF you don't accept what the US does...fine, I don't believe the US cares if you accept its action or not. It will not what it deems best for the US.

Here's an interesting statistic.

Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?

 

North Korea 6.7 %

Iraq 6.3 %

The United States 86.9 %

 

Total Votes Cast: 706842

 

NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion.

[preahko]

>IMO they sound like a bunch of cowards who belong in Canada. Good riddance...perhaps they can do community service by "GI'ing" the latrines at Guantanamo!

 

here's one that should shut up the gun-thumpers (just like bible thumpers, but they get a hard on for war instead of for jeebus...and they're much more dangerous). though I doubt it will shut them up.

 

A retired, 59-year old retired ARMY COLONEL and former U.S. diplomat, named Ann Wright, was recently harrassed (taken away by police and shackled to a chair for 45 minutes, though not charged with anything) for handing out postcards in front of the White House last week.

 

the postcards were to advertise the screening of the documentary "Sir, No Sir: The Suppressed Story of the GI Movement to End the War in Vietnam".

 

Wright resigned her State Department post in 2003 to protest the US invasion of Iraq.

 

Wright also speaks of the GI resistance active today; she says 8,000 US soldiers have already gone AWOL in Iraq, and 10,000 more have been discharged after turning themselves in for desertion.

 

now that's someone with some COURAGE...and how are the gun-thumpers going to dismiss her, one of their own who came to her senses and decided to do something truly honorable???

 

preahko

 

ps The article is from the Honolulu Weekly, Vol. 16, No. 22. Wright is from Honolulu.

[AF16]

Evel_Penivel said:

AF16 said:

What you are saying is that a military superior army are allowed to attack, occupy and put under financial and political alligance because they can due to their strenght afford to take some considerations.

 

That's not at all what I was saying. I think you drew some very sweeping conclusions. What I said was in military conflicts, U.S. forces haven't been more brutal towards civilians, in fact much less so, than other nations' forces in comparable conflicts.

 

 

AF16 said:

Sovereign nations are off limits, there has to be some form of international law, and more interests than those of the US has to be considered.

 

Is that an absolutely hard and fast rule or does it only apply to the U.S.? Cuba invaded Angola in 1975 with 30,000 troops and by 1988 the number had grown to 50,000. It had 24,00 troops in Ethiopia at one point, too. Was that wrong as well? What business did Cuba have in Angola or Ethiopia? How about Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia? Or Syria's occupation of Lebanon? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Or the Soviet occupation of all of East Europe after WWII? How about Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Iran and Iran's follow-up invasion of Iraq? That eight-year tussle cost between 700,000 and one million lives. And to take a more recent example, the 2,500 Australian troops now in East Timor? Were those equally wrong? Or is it sometimes right for one nation to invade and occupy another?

 

Regarding international law, just one question - who is going to enforce it?

 

EP

 

1. If a military _ supperior _ country gets credit for being able to lead a war where they can take some consideration of the population, which is a good stragegy in order to contain the conflict, then yes it's a go ahead for strong nations to occupy weak. The strong nation is benign, the weak part who has to be brutal because of weakness will be the bad bart.

 

What you intended to say does not matter, that's the conseqense.

 

2. Yes it should apply to everyone, that's the point of a rule of law. Ofcourse it would only apply to those who entered into such an agreement. Quwait were protected by agreement, if we look at it with kind eyes, and Iraq entered into a war of aggression, so yes Iraq were in the wrong and yes the international community could get involved in protecting Quwait.

 

3. The contries that enter into the rule of law. Sadly the US works against it, or should we say want a rule of law based on what the US say exclusivly and think the US should not be held accountable.