Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I use the word traitor because that's what a friend of mine who's joining the forces referred to one British soldier as when he refused to return to Iraq because he was morally comprimised and instead chose to speak out and join protest marches... I guess the argument does exist that once a soldier speaks out against a campaign, he ensures that his comrades died for nothing.

But today I came across this:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=142160342485027&id=108399225858479

It got me thinking, I mean, I happen to be firmly anti-militarist so I'm very willing to believe stuff like what this man describes was going on in Iraq on a daily basis: We know more about the Vietnam war than the contemporary citizens of the day did now, and we know what kind of atrocities were committed there, so why should we assume this modern conflict is any different? But my prime trail of thought is about the perceived validity of this soldier's statements... There are a good few pieces of written evidence about the war, easy to acquire and circulate... and yet popular perceptions aren't changed... Sure, people were against the Iraq war from the start and more swung over, though I can't help but feel the latter only did so once our soldiers were being sent home in bodybags... But what I want to know, Dakka, is why people are still ardent militarists, more specifically, good Christian people who I'm sure would object to torture, racism, tyranny and hatred... Does a blind commitment to our "brave boys" make us consciously overlook allegations of war crimes?

Of course, if this man is lying... or wrong... or witness to an isolated case, do any of us genuinely believe at the bottom of our hearts that militaries aren't, by nature, dark organisations? Any group that demands complete obedience and seeks to root out individuality whilst simultaneously cultivating aggression must surely have "anger issues" within it? Why else would soldiers have committed suicide during peace time here in the UK? Or racial allegations float about? Or, like in this post, allegations of abuse and torture?

To relate the post to the title: Do you believe whistle-blower soldiers? What do you think of them? Do they betray the men on the front? I happen to disagree with the latter though I can see both sides, probably because studying English made me admire Siegfried Sassoon... a heroic Officer of the First World War who left his men (and felt great pain at having done so) because he recognised that making it known how big a mistake the war was, was far more important than being with his men.

Henners91 wrote:But what I want to know, Dakka, is why people are still ardent militarists, more specifically, good Christian people who I'm sure would object to torture, racism, tyranny and hatred... Does a blind commitment to our "brave boys" make us consciously overlook allegations of war crimes?

I think that people often can't separate between being patriotic and supporting the troops from holding them accountable for their actions. I wholeheartedly support those who are serving overseas, but I will admit that there have been in the past, probably are now, and probably will be human rights violations. As much as soldiers are transformed into instruments of government policy, they are still individuals on some level and still bear their own personal prejudices. If you're wrong, you're wrong, like in the case of Abu Ghraib, but supporting your countrymen serving far, far away and condemning the acts of a few are not mutually exclusive.

Henners91 wrote:Of course, if this man is lying... or wrong... or witness to an isolated case, do any of us genuinely believe at the bottom of our hearts that militaries aren't, by nature, dark organisations? Any group that demands complete obedience and seeks to root out individuality whilst simultaneously cultivating aggression must surely have "anger issues" within it? Why else would soldiers have committed suicide during peace time here in the UK? Or racial allegations float about? Or, like in this post, allegations of abuse and torture?

Militaries are not any darker organizations than the governments they serve. There is civilians oversight in almost everything we do, at least here in the United States, and ultimately we are subservient to the government and are acting on civilian orders.

I completely disagree with your 'anger issues' statement. The whole 'cultivating aggression' is a common misconception among civilians because we're seen training aggressively. Military operations are usually conducted under the concept of 'violence of action ensures success' which means that if we're fighting you we're going to do our damnedest to kill you and accomplish the mission, but after the cease fire orders come down things stop on a dime. The perfect soldier isn't some blood-crazed berserker but is cool and composed all the time, ready to follow orders.

Why would soldiers have committed suicide? The same reason anyone else commits suicide, just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you don't have emotions and problems like anyone else. Though, for the record, death is an unauthorized rest position.

The military doesn't have a monopoly on racists, they're present in every group in society. I do think that the military let some things slide after 9/11 that they shouldn't have, but like I said earlier, soldiers are still people and have personal prejudices just like other people. The military certainly did let some things slide in regards to torture and the ethical treatment of detainees, and that was dead wrong, but I think this guy is rehashing old news. He's wearing the DBU, which was phased out of service in 2005, which was right around the time the Abu Ghraib scandal was coming to light.

Henners91 wrote:To relate the post to the title: Do you believe whistle-blower soldiers? What do you think of them? Do they betray the men on the front? I happen to disagree with the latter though I can see both sides, probably because studying English made me admire Siegfried Sassoon... a heroic Officer of the First World War who left his men (and felt great pain at having done so) because he recognised that making it known how big a mistake the war was, was far more important than being with his men.

You're a whistle blower if you're calling your chain or command or subordinates on violating the Laws of Warfare, Geneva Convention, or some order or regulation. You are not a whistle-blower if you refuse to go back to the war zone, you're spitting on your oath to your country and the people you were serving with. Just personal opinion, that refusing to follow lawful orders to return to the front is a blatant betrayal of your comrades and country.

Let me be the first to call Sassoon a deserter and a traitor who got off lightly. I don't doubt his courage (who could in light of his medals and achievements in France?) but he betrayed his country and forsook his soldiers. It's one thing for a soldier to leave, but for a commander to desert is the ultimate treason. He should have been shot or hanged for such blatant dereliction of duty and desertion.

I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable. My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.

What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.

Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing: Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

Having been to Iraq and knowing many others that have also gone I think people like this are full of gak and also cowards. Same old tired rhetoric from someone trying to justify his inability to fulfill his Oath.

My two cents.

Henners91 wrote:Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

You are correct that some Americans did not see a strong military as a good thing for the nation. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of keeping things small and minimal in terms of he wanted the Federal government to be in control of. It is not so much we did not want a strong army, but that at the time when our nation was young, balanced budgets and minimal intervention into the rights of the people were common beliefs. Ergo, America would of been against the build up of the nation's armies because it would mean run away spending and possibly tyranny, but the economical and libertarian aspects of the argument were stronger than the threat of a danger from the military.

I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable. My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.

One in every 2500 UK citizens is deployed abroad. You are not more militant then you were during the cold war and significantly less so then during WW2.

Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:

If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.

Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.

A soldier is required by law to refuse and report orders that are deemed illegal or war crimes by the geneva conventions as well as several other treaties. You are using hyperbole to make him out to be better then he is.

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

No part of that paragraph actually represents how the world works or worked previously.

Henners91 wrote:I'll grant you that the principles of civilian oversight are sound and quite respectable in the US, but I can't help but feel that there has been a militarisation of society in the latter half of the last century... I'm not necessarily talking about ol' Ike's Military-Industrial Complex but rather attitudes... that seeking service makes one respectable.

This is not unique to the last half century. It's true of civilizations throughout history. It isn't limited to military service. Many societies and groups have viewed public service as very respectable.

My opinions on the matter are likely influenced by my opposition to the Iraq War but I just couldn't help but feel that willingly surrendering your freedom to choose isn't something that should be unconditionally encouraged.

You don't lose any constitutionally protected rights in the US Military. You're rights may be restricted by the nature of military service but you don't lose them. This is a myth perpetuated by people who've never read the code of conduct.

What you say about Sassoon is the great example of this: Here was a man who saw the fighting of WWI for the slaughter it was, who believed the war was being waged incompetently, a view I'm sure that most modern observers with hindsight would support: And yet you say he should've swung from a gallows. I believe he was fully aware of the gravity of what he was doing but realised that the slaughter of WWI was a worthy cause to try stop.

Desertion is desertion. Good intentions don't factor into a matter of law. Either it was broken or it wasn't. When you start making exceptions because "he did it for a good reason" the entire concept of law and justice loses its purpose and system loses credibility.

Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be...

Yes. I can see how a soldier is not a risk at all. After all, President Obama WILL jump in front of poor Private Ricky and take that bullet for him. The Government doesn't protect soldiers in the way this statement seems to suggest. Quite the opposite actually.

the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:

I can understand where you're coming from. But most deserters don't desert because they think something horrible is happening. They desert to save their own butts.

Just as how I would consider a soldier who deserted from Iraq to be a bigger hero than a man in the same unit who persisted in his immoral actions.

Not every soldier commits war crimes. What immoral actions?

Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled:

Less to do with the threat of a military to democracy, which a military is not inherently threatening to a democracy, and more to do with fear of big government. The first 150 years of US history were heavily influenced by fears of the big mean government. Not the military in particular.

I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

Up until WWII-onwards, and after the Articles of Confederation, the US Military was about the same as any other. It was smaller than most but back then the US was somewhat isolationist and had little interest in events beyond it's boarders. So long as the world left American alone, America didn't really care. This changed with Manifest Destiny and post Civil War America. The US followed world suit in the rise of nationalism. Nothing really all that different about it.

WarOne wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Back to oversight, I get the impression that the reason such principles were created in the US was a profound belief that nothing good can come out of war, that militaries were dangerous and threatening toward democracy and needed to be kept out and controlled: I would take that as the primary reason that early American history does not see a strong military.

You are correct that some Americans did not see a strong military as a good thing for the nation. Thomas Jefferson was the main proponent of keeping things small and minimal in terms of he wanted the Federal government to be in control of. It is not so much we did not want a strong army, but that at the time when our nation was young, balanced budgets and minimal intervention into the rights of the people were common beliefs. Ergo, America would of been against the build up of the nation's armies because it would mean run away spending and possibly tyranny, but the economical and libertarian aspects of the argument were stronger than the threat of a danger from the military.

Most states were ineffectually governed in early america and there was little need for a unified national military. Over the next few hundred years we became more unified and our economic and thus military capability improved. Early america was highly militant, our national military simply didn't coalesce until later. America has historically always been very militaristic.

Does militarism really bother you?


The guy you quoted was in a gakky unit with a severe lack of supervision. I'd like to see the OER and NCOER's of the guys in that unit after all this came to light. You can bet your ass the were reprimanded. Think about what happened to the Abu Gharib crew, the entire CoC got fethed, even if they wern't involved and had absolutely no knowledge.

Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Does militarism really bother you?


The guy you quoted was in a gakky unit with a severe lack of supervision. I'd like to see the OER and NCOER's of the guys in that unit after all this came to light. You can bet your ass the were reprimanded. Think about what happened to the Abu Gharib crew, the entire CoC got fethed, even if they wern't involved and had absolutely no knowledge.

It's hard to believe that anyone within or related to the complex didn't know. They were not discrete and one solider even reported it (as is his duty via those geneva conventions) and the report got swept away and he was harassed by others within his unit in unpleasant ways for being a whistle blower.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:As much as soldiers are transformed into instruments of government policy, they are still individuals on some level and still bear their own personal prejudices.

They are no less individuals than anyone else, regardless of the connotations that are included with serving within a military institution. One does not need to stand out to have a personality, the idea that soldiers are mindless... could easily be considered much the same. Shades of gray or something.

If you're wrong, you're wrong, like in the case of Abu Ghraib, but supporting your countrymen serving far, far away and condemning the acts of a few are not mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive in the fact that part of an apple does not constitute the whole. I can easily eat the best apple I have ever had, while at the same time noticing it's faults. Hey, this apple isn't an orange; nor is it a pear; nor is it a pomegranate; worst of all the scar on this apple makes me focus on it. Your statement seems to indicate that no fault can be noticed while the whole is praised. I drew a face the other day and did a good job of it, then I noticed that I had made a mistake, which had no substantial bearing on the fact that I had done a good job overall. You can't expect an imperfect method to produce perfect results.

Killing to stop killing is an imperfect method (noting that no method is perfect, while some can still be better than others), it is barbaric, and should be noted as such. You can attach your opinion to that in whatever way you see fit, noting that it is an opinion in itself. If our ancestors had access to atomic bombs, we would have been royally fethed. Perhaps if our descendants are around to take note, they will regard us as the point in between having little to no control within a limited setting, and having a very noticable amount of control to the point that nuclear options can simply be set aside.

I believe that we are already much more peaceful than we once were. I also believe that whether or not our species lasts a significant amount of time, we will continue on the path towards maintaining a higher level of peace, even if through violent means at first. Even if our history ends in with a gak ton of feth, there will have been a long period in which we required less violence to sustain ourselves.

ShumaGorath wrote:If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.

I am not informed as to the the actual nature of a soldiers contract (per specific countries) and it would be great to see what 'he signed up to do'. No artificial conflict intended, just interested in the actual documentation. I would offer my opinion on this but it doesn't seem all that important.

A soldier is required by law to refuse and report orders that are deemed illegal or war crimes by the geneva conventions as well as several other treaties. You are using hyperbole to make him out to be better then he is.

I don't personally agree that a deserter can be considered a war hero in most situations but on admiration alone I would agree with the general sentiment. A good soldier is not necessarily a good person, nor is a good person necessarily a good soldier. In all, I would agree with you entirely, provided a pinch of salt or two.

What part is he lying or wrong about?

For example, did he interrogate somebody and beat on him? I believe it.

But the parts about millions of people dying, and deliberate attacks on civillian infrastructure? Not so much.

I think it's unfortunate that soldiers were put in positions like these that they were not trained or prepared for, but I also think we already knew this went on. Abu Ghraib, etc. etc.

I think it's too bad this guy has tried to make such grand, sweeping commentary on the war. He has a story to tell, and then he went beyond that and tried to make it more than it is.

Also, FWIW, somebody who refuses to return to their unit isn't a "traitor" they're a "deserter," which has been harshly punished in the past, but I would say it's a lesser crime than treason by far.

I'm not pasting the entire listing, but Online Legal Dictionary states:

Treason is the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

And since it was brought up, here is Article III, Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Dissent being enough to be considered traitorous was a concern when the document was written, so they narrowly defined it so that just voicing an unpopular or position that was contrary to the governments wasn't considered a treasonous act. Adams would back pedal a bit on that with the Alien and Sedition Acts but that got straightened out eventually.

The word "enemy" in Article III, section 3 is a bit vague nowadays. As that soldier in his speech pointed out, bombing the water supply and subsequently causing the deaths of thousands of children, or sanctions to starve them into submission are hardly attacking an "enemy" and in my opinion do seem more like terrorism. It isn't "giving them aid and comfort" to speak out against a war. Now helping out an Iraqi Soldier during the First Gulf war with aid and comfort, or giving an insurgent a map of an army base may be treasonous, but speaking out against other elements of the war, or just war in general isn't really the same kind of "aid and comfort", it isn't treason. Whether you agree with him or not, he was stating his feelings on the matter, a right we all supposedly have, he wasn't directly giving them aid or comfort, he was making the public aware of the way some soldiers really view what they are doing. Questioning if it's worth it to be at war in the first place. If anything that is doing his country a service, because nobody really wants to be having a war except those that profiteer from it.

No wars mean no money for Cheney and his cronies. It's a bit late for that though though. Thanks a lot Bush (either one will do). Thanks a lot Haliburton, Blackwater, and so on.

Does trying to make people believe my opinion make me treasonous? No. Does it aid the enemy to want to stop a war, sure, in the same indirect way it aids our own people, by helping to stop a war that the real people on both sides really have no desire to be in.

Guitardian wrote:The word "enemy" in Article III, section 3 is a bit vague nowadays. As that soldier in his speech pointed out, bombing the water supply and subsequently causing the deaths of thousands of children, or sanctions to starve them into submission are hardly attacking an "enemy" and in my opinion do seem more like terrorism. It isn't "giving them aid and comfort" to speak out against a war. Now helping out an Iraqi Soldier during the First Gulf war with aid and comfort, or giving an insurgent a map of an army base may be treasonous, but speaking out against other elements of the war, or just war in general isn't really the same kind of "aid and comfort", it isn't treason. Whether you agree with him or not, he was stating his feelings on the matter, a right we all supposedly have, he wasn't directly giving them aid or comfort, he was making the public aware of the way some soldiers really view what they are doing. Questioning if it's worth it to be at war in the first place. If anything that is doing his country a service, because nobody really wants to be having a war except those that profiteer from it.

No wars mean no money for Cheney and his cronies. It's a bit late for that though though. Thanks a lot Bush (either one will do). Thanks a lot Haliburton, Blackwater, and so on.

I guess you missed the Pentagon giving Halliburton a 500 million dollar no-bid contract earlier this year?

The issue with the word 'enemy' is that it was chosen when enemies were only anticipated to be other states. In the modern world all sensible states are allies against their malcontents.

You can see a similar trend towards the weakening of sovereignty in the desire to revise the meaning of 'imminent'.

How do we know civilian casualties are civilian? This is the problem with fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms and uses gorilla tactics. Take the gun off a dead guy and he's a civilian.

I'm pretty militaristic when we have to be. I'm also a libertarian. I'm not sure we should have ever gone to the gulf in the first place and I mean the first one that started this mess. I'm sure I'll get flack for this but I think Kuwait was asking for trouble by slant drilling Iraqi oil while demanding loan payments for the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait was a major benefactor from.

But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done. These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.

As far as War reporting. I wonder how different world war 2 would have turned out if every act was reported. I'm pretty sure U.S. Marines were committing what would be considered war crimes when they were fighting the Japanese.

It's war, its not patty cake. It should be mean it should be scary, it should be frightening. War will never be so brutal that leaders don't do it, but maybe they will consider their actions before war starts a little more.

Andrew1975 wrote:How do we know civilian casualties are civilian? This is the problem with fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms and uses gorilla tactics. Take the gun off a dead guy and he's a civilian.

Besides meaning 'guerrilla warfare', you're right.

Unless you are talking about this. Which is also cool.

I'm pretty militaristic when we have to be. I'm also a libertarian. I'm not sure we should have ever gone to the gulf in the first place and I mean the first one that started this mess. I'm sure I'll get flack for this but I think Kuwait was asking for trouble by slant drilling Iraqi oil while demanding loan payments for the Iran Iraq war which Kuwait was a major benefactor from.

But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done. These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.

I am not sure that the war in the middle east is actually over resources, as it appears to have a whole lot more to do with power in general. Your talk of limited war strikes me as a bit odd, considering the amount of investment that has actually gone into this war. What you are actually saying appears to have a lot to do with dropping a nuke and just being done with it. The amount of ordinance that was dropped in Iraq was a bit mind boggling.

This was just one day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/10/iraq/main3694971.shtml

U.S. warplanes unleashed one of the most intense airstrikes of the Iraq war Thursday, dropping 40,000 pounds of explosives in a thunderous 10-minute onslaught on suspected al Qaeda in Iraq safe havens in Sunni farmlands south of Baghdad.

That is roughly 3x as much as I could poop in a lifetime. That is a serious fact.

Andrew1975 wrote:As far as War reporting. I wonder how different world war 2 would have turned out if every act was reported. I'm pretty sure U.S. Marines were committing what would be considered war crimes when they were fighting the Japanese.

No war is the same and cultures have changed significantly over time. I doubt there will ever be a way to understand all of the differences between any given wars, but there are certainly striking differences between most of them as it is. Perhaps the Vietnam war was over-reported and we just don't hear about all the atrocities that have occurred in other wars. As far as I remember, there are plenty of accounts of atrocities committed in WW2 outside of the holocaust.

I am also sure that there were crimes committed against U.S. marines by the Japanese during WW2.

Back on topic, there's no doubt that dirty stuff has been done by western troops and agencies during the GWoT.

That does not mean every soldier's allegations are true, however they should not be dismissed as traitorous, since that allows unscrupulous authorities to cover up evidence of real crimes.

As for the idea that we are in a war in Iraq and can justify killing civilians because they might be guerilla fighters, I reject it utterly.

Indiscriminate killing is the hallmark of the terrorist movements we are fighting against. If we do the same, we are different from them only by having smarter uniforms and heavier weapons.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done.

Is that Selective Service card burning a hole in your pocket?

Andrew1975 wrote:
These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.

Why are your feelings relevant?

I am also sure that there were crimes committed against U.S. marines by the Japanese during WW2.

Oh we all know there were, not just in japan. But according to the press and these "traitors" there is never an excuse for U.S. soldiers to act unprofessionally. They are supposed to be detached, unemotional and fair soldiers. It's unrealistic.

By limited war a mean where we send only a fraction of our forces to a giant country and then tie their hands. We have not even disarmed the general population of Iraq, In a guerrilla war we are letting everybody keep their AK's. If shots are being fired from a building our soldiers are not allowed to just level the building. Why are we following the Geneva convention against terrorists and guerrillas? The convention does not even apply to them as they do not fulfill any of the requirements of the convention.

No we shouldn't just spray and pray, but its a warzone. You drive though a checkpoint or too close to a convoy you should not be surprised when you get shot. Were they civilians, who knows. There are going to be accidents, there are going to be innocents killed. It's a warzone.......get out of there. If a guy has a gun stay away from him. We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.

I think in many ways by fighting too humanly the U.S. is increasing their exposure and time in country, which only increases casualties. Just do it and get it done. Tear the bandaid off don't pull it for ten years.

So no, i can't support these traitors as they pull support from a war and expose the soldiers to unnecessary harm, including making and enforcing idiotic policies that make wars unwinnable.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But once we are committed we should be committed send in everything and get it done.

Is that Selective Service card burning a hole in your pocket?

Andrew1975 wrote:
These limited wars are killing costing too much. Send everything, be brutal, get it over with and get home. How long does the U.S. have to play politically correct soldier in Iraq. I dont think we ever had enough feet on the ground to get that mess handled properly.

Why are your feelings relevant?

Never said we should enforce a draft. A professional army is much much more reliable than a conscript one. Just said we should send everything. The U.S. did not send the full might of the U.S. military into Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor did the U.S. use its full capabilities in an unrestricted war since WW2. No I don't mean Nuke use, just no hand tying of tactics and rules. To sum it up. If you are not going to fully commit don't commit at all. Don't waste the resources unless you are serious, don't get into a situation where you are fighting for ten years and exposing your soldiers to situations where these they can kill "civilians" and give the U.S. a bad name.

Where do I say feelings?
Is any of this important?
Are your comments or opinions important?

Andrew1975 wrote:
By limited war a mean where we send only a fraction of our forces to a giant country and then tie their hands. We have not even disarmed the general population of Iraq

A fraction, huh? How many combat personnel does the US possess?

Andrew1975 wrote:
In a guerrilla war we are letting everybody keep their AK's[/u]. If shots are being fired from a building our soldiers are not allowed to just level the building. Why are we following the Geneva convention against terrorists and guerrillas? The convention does not even apply to them as they do not fulfill any of the requirements of the convention.

We're signatories to the Geneva Conventions, even though we do not follow them.

Also, the GCs include non-state actors in a loose fashion. But we are not following their guidelines.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We are not fighting an army so technically the insurgents, or enemy combatants or whatever we are calling them this week are civilians.

Have you ever read the Geneva Conventions?

# Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (maybe)

2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (nope)

3. That of carrying arms openly; (nope)

4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (nope)

But dogma I'm relatively new here I don't want to hijack the thread. So I'll just say yes I think the "Traitors" are traitors. I they are found guilty of leaking privileged military information they should be put on trial for treason and if found guilty the should be shot as traitors. People can protest all they want, but to leak info is being a traitor.

Wrong passage.

Art. 5 wrote:
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

who are these "such persons" it does not say all persons or all cases and you have given no qualifications. I have qualified who the convention applies to and who is doesn't.

also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

Also you are a vet here so i'll follow your lead on hijacking (i don't know if this counts or not honestly). We can always do this on our own thread.

I think diplomacy is a far better way to strive for. The problem with that is that so many factions are, at the top level of decision-makers, just striving for their own faction.

U.S. interests in defending our borders by crashing someone elses and policing them. Corporate interests in profits, political interests in saving face in public, public interest in having it all over with, parental interests in their kid overseas, religious zealousy between the arab states and israel, political pressure to continue to support Israel because if we stop we will be anti-semitic and if we don't stop we will be anti-arab...

List could go on and on... tribal interest between sunni vs. shiite, soldiers interests in questioning their orders and report their brothers-in-arms.

Yeah as Shuma pointed out, a soldier is required to refuse and report any violating order given. But how many do you think actually do that? They are in a foreign land, and their only support is their immediate peers. I don't care what kind of balls they teach you in Marine training, I'm pretty sure that in the immediate moment, your first instinct would be to stick by your battle buddies and do what you're told rather than be the rat in everyone else's eyes.

The number of factions and complexity of different angles involved in all of these special interests with their claims to being "right" for this or that reason, is just an impossible task to juggle. Border disputes between Israel and Palestine, Jewish resentment that they can't build their oh-so-important temple where it used to be. Palestinians pissed off that they got herded off their homes to make a place for the Jews, who get all the backing. Other Arab states pissed off that the west supported this as a slight against their fellow Arabs which is a slight to all of them.

It could be resolved by just destroying Jerusalem and saying "THERE! NOW THERE's NOTHING TO FIGHT OVER SO ALL OF YOU JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" But... That wouldn't go over well in the world community where many people still take scripture very seriously. Oil, being the next big concern, could be resolved much more easily if religion wasn't in the way complicating things. But imagine if there was no Jerusalem to argue over, no Temple Mount, no Dome of the ROck, nothing sacred there to divide the area. Just oil.

I can't really comprehend the staggering stupidity of people carrying on about a myth that is thousands of years old and turning it into yet another factor in the "how the hell do we make peace in the middle east". Oh yeah. Because people are supertitious and set in their traditions. If you observe one, you insult its enemy. When my brother and me used to fight over a toy as kids my mom would take it and throw it away. We learned not to fight over a toy pretty quickly. Treat them like kids, take away their toy. Just, give them fair warning and a chance, and help, to evacuate. Boom. All gone. No holy land, just a holey land. Now will you kids behave?

Andrew1975 wrote:
also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

No, that is the purpose of the "unlawful combatant" category.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Last term I had to study Hannah Arendt and she wrote of an interesting principle: She claimed that those who kill war criminals on behalf of government aren't worthy of praise because they are protected by said governments... there's no risk, however, a man who goes vigilante and kills said war criminals is a hero... Why does this relate to our discussion? Because her point was that when one takes personal risk to one's own safety then you are showing how worthy you hold your cause to be... the fact that Sassoon committed such heinous crimes as desertion and dereliction of duty just makes him more of a hero in my eyes because he was aware of the gravity of what he was doing:

If he's like the rest of the UK presence in Iraq he was sitting in a base in one city. Those are crimes because discipline is a requisite for an armed service to function. He could not be trusted to perform his duty and committed something he knew was a crime and something he signed up to do. This was not forced on him. He is not a victim.

Wait... Are you talking about Siegfried Sassoon, or the US soldier who wrote the facebook page that Henners linked to? Siegfried Sasoon served in WW1 - I'm pretty sure he didn't serve in the recent Iraq war.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
also by violating every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions.

No, that is the purpose of the "unlawful combatant" category.

I'm pretty sure the rules of war need to be a bit brought up to speed with modern situations. "unlawful combatant" is about as ludicrous an idea as stoning a man for taking the Lords name in vain these days. When one team doesn't play by the rules, it kind of necessitates the rules being changed as far as what counts as a "combatant". England learned that the hard way after Napoleon and as the U.S. decided to fight on their own terms. Heck I'd be happy if being a combatant in the first place was considered "unlawful". Since that is quite unlikely and put a lot of gun-happy people out of a job, I'll settle for the next best thing: lax the rules enough for people to fight each other as viciously as they want so everyone can kill each other with impunity and feth the morality of who is or is not allowed to be killed, who is or is not allowed to call someone a sandnigger as they throw them out of their home at gunpoint, or feel free to speak their mind about feeling bad about doing so. YEEE HAAAW.

If you don't want to be called on being an donkey-cave don't do donkey-cave things.

"Unlawful combatants" have been a feature of wars since the Peninsular Campaign in the early 1800s.