No Limits To U.S. War Crimes

thank you otter. i wish everyone could have a brain at least a portion of your size. the world would be a better place.

 

Not even the most anti-Iraqi US military official even suggests that most of the insurgents are foriegn.

But guess what foriegn county has the most soldiers in Iraq, doing the bulk of the killing?
I'll give you a hint. It's not Syria, Egypt, not Jordon, not Saudi Arabia.
Have you guessed yet?
WE have the largest killing force in Iraq; WE lead the rest of the world in killing Iraqi's.
You don't think our bombs kill innocent civilians, including women & children? Our military claims that every single person our bombs kill are insurgents; don't swallow that shit.

Did you hear about suicide bombers in Iraq before the US invaded?
There was no al-queda in Iraq before we invaded. There is now.

 

OK point taken - now what do you see as an exit strategy for Iraq. Do we continue to maintain a presence in that country? Do we provide logistical support? Moreover, if so what kind of force do you see us needing to maintain an airhead. Alternatively, to keep a port and road network open. Show me an end game.

 

Who do YOU depend on for your news, palm readers?


I read media from all over the world, trying to avoid as much as possible gov't lap dogs like faux news.
I don't understand why some people keep swallowing bushit. Hasn't he proven he's a pathological liar enough for you all fucking ready?

jr's even got you believing he's fighting "terrorism" in Iraq, when the FACTS are that there was no al-queda in Iraq before we invaded.

Terrorism is when a country invades another country and kills tens of thousands of their citizens and tortures the survivors. The U.S. is a terrorist country by any definition of the word.

I may have a huge advantage over you. I lived through the Viet Nam war era, and I KNOW what's gonna happen in Iraq.
If you weren't alive yet, or don't remember, you'd be well served by doing a search.
Take note of the photo taken on the last day of the war. See the last war helicopter taking off, with a few U.S. puppets hanging onto the struts?
Just substitue the desert for the jungle. That's how the war in Iraq will end.
When we leave.
It won't be over until we leave, can't you see that?

 

you might want to get your facts straight.

All US ground combat troops were out of vietnam by august 1972. The picture of the helicopters is when saigon fell in 1975. Why does no one else know this?

 

http://servercc.oakton.edu/~wittman/chronol.htm

.

 

The last US ground combat troops left Vietnam on 23 August, 1972.

On 29 March, 1973, The United States officially withdrew the last American troops from Vietnam.

either way...the last day of the war was not the fall of saigon.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A715060

 

From the linked article:
April 29-30, 1975
Saigon falls. U. S. Navy evacuates U.S. personnel and South Vietnamese refugees. The last American combat death in Vietnam occurs.

Note it mentions the U.S. Navy evaculating U.S. personnel and the last combat death in '75.
If we had no troops in Viet Nam in '75, how did this occur?

With the war in Iraq, the parallels to Viet Nam are stunning.
The reason, the gov't told us (and I'm faulting the Dem's as much as the Rep's here) we invaded VietNam and started killing them, was to protect the U.S. from communism (the pre-80's word for terrorism). Get them before they got us. Plus, we were told, the N. Vietnamese attacked one of our ships in the Gulf Of Tonkin.
Except that never happened; it was a gov't lie to convince the American people that "something must be done because they attacked us first".
And the innocent civilians we raped, tortured and slaughtered? We were doing it for their own good. A general at the time actually called the innocent civilians we killed "the grateful dead" (which is where the band got it's name).

We were told we were the good guys, that the Vietnamese people were glad we were there, that we were were fighting a small minority, and that the Viet Cong/N. Vietnamese were being helped by foriegners like people from Laos and Cambodia (both countries nixon secretly bombed). And we needed to keep sending our countries youth to die in the jungle so all the previous deaths weren't "in vain."
At first, those of us who protested the war were called "communist sympathizers" and cowards.
But slowly but surely the majority of American's saw through the gov'ts smoke and mirrors. Few believed anymore than the Vietnamese people were a threat to us (and history has proves us right hasn't it?).
Faced with eroding public support and growing opposition, the gov't had no choice but to end the war, which there was no way to win, because all we had to do to stop being killed was TO LEAVE.

Notice the parellels?

The end of the war in Iraq (and prob. Afganistan) will dovetail the end of the war in Viet Nam.
Eventually there will be peace talks with the insurgents which will enable the U.S. to save face without admitting defeat, although it will be viewed by everyone as such, just like in VietNam.

 

http://www.vietvet.org/edgewall.htm

"The last death from the Vietnam War is more difficult to determine. Eleven hours before the ceasefire deadline, on January 27, 1973, Lieutenant Colonal William B. Nolde was listed as the last U.S. "combat death," but American military personnel continued to be killed in Viet Nam. More than two years after the peace agreement of 1973 went into effect, on April 30, 1975, the temporary president of South Viet Nam, General Duong Van "Big" Minh, turned the government over to the Communists. The remaining Americans had fled the day before, but American losses continued. On May 13, 1975, 25 Air Force lives were lost, and on May 15, 1975, another 18 Americans (14 Marines, 2 Navy, and 2 Air Force) were killed. At least one more soldier died in 1975: Jon O. Nacy, an Army PFC from Detroit who died on November 8, and he wasn't the last. On November 15, 1981, Major Eddie B. Story (Army) of Jonesboro, Tennessee was added to the list. And the names continue to be added to The Wall. There are those who will continue to die as a direct or indirect result of their war experience whose names are not yet listed and may never be. And there is the continuing pain of the families for whom the war has meant irrevocable grief and suffering that will continue."

.

 

Have you considered that maybe your media doesn't want you to see such things.

http://www.september11news.com/Oct10IraqProtests.jpg
http://www.theodora.com/flags/burning/baghdad_010917_ap.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/02/iraq.reporters.notebook/flag.burn.jpg

 

The last of the US "advisory" staff were taken off the top of the US embassy in 1975 by helicopters from a US aircraft carrier. Want to bet that the boys flying those birds were getting combat pay? Your point may be correct in fact, but does not address the issue that was raised by the comment to which you are replying.

 

it most certainly does. The end of the war for the US was not 1975. How are you going to argue that the last day of the war was something other than when a peace accords were signed and all the troops were brought home?

i like how you phrased that though..."your point may be correct in FACT"

 

Technically, Vietnam wasn't officially a war, so even Megara is wrong.

Anyway, it's good we finally brought our 500,000 'advisors' home.

.

 

The original issue of the thread concerned how bodies of the enemy are disposed of. Somehow we got into an argument over when the Vietnam conflict ended.

I'd be interested in knowing the rules or laws regarding disposing of enemy bodies. I'm not an expert in that area. I don't really know all the military and international laws regarding that issue.

.

 

I bow to your expertise - you are 100% correct on the moment of the war ending. Now returning to the point

This is the point of Rangerdanger's observation that I would like to see you address. Do you see this conflict ending in another way than described? If so, outline what you see as the endgame.

 

From the U.S. Army

FM 27-10

THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE

​

​

218. Graves Registration Service

Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.

Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.

They shall further ensure that the dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. For this purpose, they shall organize at the commencement of hostilities an Official Graves Registration Service, to allow subsequent exhumations and to ensure the identification of bodies, whatever the site of the graves, and the possible transportation to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country.

 

I don't think setting bodies on fire on the ground would be considered cremation. I haven't heard the rationale why the bodies of the two insurgents in Afghanistan were set on fire, other than reasons of health which have been circulating in the media. I haven't heard the justification for the health argument. It was only two bodies in that particular case. Sounds unusual to me.

.

 

honestly? I dont consider myself at all qualified to answer. It sure looks like it is going to end in disaster, though.