No Limits To U.S. War Crimes

We used napalm in Gulf War I and WP in the current conflict. We have also sidestepped all of the rules on treatment of captives. Notice I said captives; I would have to agree that the people we are fighting are not POW's under the definitions of the act.

 

I fear that I am going to need that translated - I am not bright enough to take the meaning.

 

I know that the point was entirely conjectural, but when you see footage of the "freedom fighters", you can see that the only possessions of value are the weapons they carry, so it is indeed very likely that poverty prevents uniform purchases.
As well da420, your point If they can't follow the simple rules of war cuts both ways, and I ask the question, does the supposed "moral right" lower it's values because they perceicve their enemies as having lesser 'morality"?
Basing moral decision on clothing is, well, not intelligent IMHO.

 

I am trying hard to conceive of a war where either side followed the rules of war. I know damn well that the one that I was a small part of had no rules. That Red Cross did not help me a damn bit. I know that my dad's war WWII did not have any rules. Both sides in the pacific pulled prisoners out of the water with grapple hooks. My dad's oldest brother lost a leg in WWI and saw both sides use gas. My Half Brother fought in Korea where we machine gunned fleeing refugees to make sure that NKA troops were not hiding in the crowds. I had daughters by the blessing so the family is out of the war business until the grandkids get older. However, I would really like to here about this war with rules that we used to have.

 

Treating your enemy like this lowers yourself to his level.

 

Before any more American's criticize people who don't wear uniforms to fight the invaders, you might want to think back to the founding of the USA.

When Paul Revere made his midnight ride, the people who responded to fight the Brit's weren't wearing uniforms (since there was no country to respresent yet).
They were common citizens, banded together to protect themselves from the invading killers.
Besides, whose uniform would they wear? We don't know if they even represented a certain entity.
Maybe, like the esrliest Americans, just wanted the enemy out.
After all, they're defending themselves.
I wasn't aware you had to wear a uniform to defend yourself.

 

well, the troops could have left the corpses out to be eaten by dogs or deterioate and spread deadly disease.

Damned if we do,damned if we don't eh?

And please, shove off with the whole "well if we weren't there in the first place" BS.

We are there, people are dying and you can't leave a bunch of dead bodies lying around until the religious guy comes out of his bunker to bless them and have them buried.Sorry....it doesn't work that way.

 

People stand on the scaffold and argue about how many knots the rope should have. All wars suck – All wars are full of horror and the most awful kinds of death. The only solution is to have fewer and more limited wars. I rather favor the assignation idea – hell let the king die for a change.

 

Even easier, how about pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3833744

.

 

And people have the gall to suggest the Iranians are a potential nuclear threat??

I suggest they look closer to home.

 

how about a 26 cent 7.65mm goodby

 

And people today in the U.S. say we don't have any kings and queens.

.

 

The combined worth of U.S. billionaires went over the $1 trillion mark recently.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/23/news/newsmakers/forbes_400/
.

 

But the Pentagon wouldn't get to show off its nice orange shock and awe bombs like it did in Iraq a few years ago.

There was at least one assassination attempt on Saddam. A group of people stormed his motorcade but were unsuccessful.

Interestingly, Saddam was a hired hit man in his younger days. That's how he made a name for himself. His first assassination mission was when he was about 20.

.

 

Martha is up there too now.

http://www.ksbitv.com/hotlinks/1356247.html

"According to the issue, due for release on Friday, Stewart has a net worth of $1 billion, thanks mostly to the value of stock in her company Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia which more than doubled while she was in jail. "

I'm sure that will frustrate the hell out of those at Fox News.

.

 

Those defending their native soil against unprovoked foreign aggression have the full defense of international law, gilligan. Blind nationalists who excuse their government's disregard for the very precepts of law to which it is signatory are the only apologists for terrorists and war criminals in this equation.

Advancing the rhetorical BS and the categorizations of repeatedly proven liars only continues to demonstrate how gullibly you've bought into the big lie, aka The War on Terror, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Consistency of principle doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

 

OK let us say they are terrorists under the law - that makes them armed individuals in a combat zone. Under the rules, they can be shot on sight. They can be held, interrogated as needed, then taken out put up against a wall then shot. That is what we did to Germans wearing US uniforms in WWII. It’s this in between bullshit that drives me up a wall. If they are our captives and we are going to keep them then they need to go before a judge and have their rights upheld. The US wants to have its cake and eat it too - they do not have the nads to shoot any armed man on sight and yet they do not have enough faith in their own system to give them a trial. Pick one or the other. In addition, in the mean time try to figure out how we are going to get all those grunts with their expensive gear out of that wretched country in the middle of an urban conflict. You might like to read about what a fun time the SS had in Warsaw in 1942 trying to dig out a handful of Jews with handguns.

 

I have a little list
they would never be missed .....

 

Where is it written that it is more moral and lawful to kill people by dropping bombs on them than people strapping bombs onto themselves and killing people thst way?
Gilligan, keep repeating to yourself until it sinks in--we invaded them. They are defending themselves.
They never did anything to us. They were no danger.
Yet we invaded them and jr.--the Butcher of Bagdad--has killed tens of thousands of men women and children.
We wanted to help the people of Iraq? papabush sold WMD to saddam.
papabush killed 1.5 million Iraqi's by denying them food and medicine.
Now, who's more moral?

 

The Iraqis are not defending themselves.

The insurgency in Iraq is not made up of Iraqis. Yes, there are some Sunni funded groups making hits but the bulk of carnage is being committed by outsiders who take advantage of the unguarded borders. Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, and Egyptians make up the vast majority of the insurgency.

Over 10,000 Iraqis killed but not mostly by US troops. They are being killed by these militant asshats who see 3 soldiers standing somewhere and despite the dozen civilians also present, these morons still set off a car bomb. A dozen plus innocent people killed in an attempt to kill 3 soldiers. Real intelligent.

The insurgency doesn't give a shit about Iraq or Iraqis, they have an agenda of power and religious totalitarianism that they kill for. They don't care about the children their car bomb killed, they don't care about the women they kidnap and strap bombs to.They don't care about anything or anyone except for themselves.