Should military leadership be held responsible for warcrimes?

NedreckSavant

New member
Exactly what I said. No bashing, no overly emotional responses, simply the following:

Does the responsibility of creating a situation in Iraq in which war crimes are the norm and not the exception lie squarely with the officers and commanders of the US Army, starting with the Commander in Chief, George W. Bush?
 
Last edited:
Does the responsibility of creating a situation in Iraq in which war crimes are the norm and not the exception lie squarely with the officers and commanders of the US Army, starting with the Commander in Chief, George W. Bush?

all righty then.

"War crimes".

"Norm, Not exception."

Gee, do you think you really want a healthy "no overly emotional" debate on that matter:cool:

Waiting for a mod, 10, 9, 8, 7......

WildmazeltovAlaska
 
Are we able to rationally discuss the ocurance of any warcrimes without the ole 'nuh uh! did not!' reasoning? If someone finds fault with my premise that they have become the norm, by all means...call me on it. I just thought that as long as we all play nice...Or is the very idea of it something that's 'not to be discussed'? Is it not our civic duty to discuss it? Besides alaska, you're just the kind of person who's wise insight I wanted by asking this!
 
Define what you mean that war crimes are the norm. That's quite different from some war crimes happening as they always do.

Going to war, in general, leads to war crimes as a consequence of the social context. We have known this for ages.

IMHO - just blanket statements are troll bait and really not worthwhile. Recall, I'm certainly not a GWB fan but I am realistic.
 
The last thing I'd ever want is to be seen as a troll, my apologies too all. Though some things are inevitable, it's only AFTER so much time that some of the examples I've seen started popping up. I believe that it was due to the instruction/lack thereof of the commanders up the chain that has led to the downright disasterous situation we're in. I only wish to inspire discussion and stirring of the pot. Trolling i'm not.

As for it becoming the norm, my understanding is that with the extrordinary rise in IED attacks, the prevailing mindset of American soldiers in Iraq is the one we see that of a war criminal. I'll use the example of one Jody Casey, a 29 year-old veteran of occupation of Iraq, he said, "I have seen innocent people being killed. IEDs go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you. You know, those people were out there trying to make a living, but on the other hand, you get hit by four or five of those IEDs and you get pretty tired of that, too." While he didn't participate in such killings himself, Casey said that the overall atmosphere in Iraq was such that "you could basically kill whoever you wanted - it was that easy. You did not even have to get off and dig a hole or anything. You're driving down the road at three in the morning. There's a guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a shovel off."
According to Casey, his unit had been advised by troops who had previously served in the area [al-Anbar province] to keep shovels on
their vehicles. Each time an innocent Iraqi is killed, a shovel thrown next to the body is evidence that the dead civilian, when killed, was in
the act of digging holes to plant roadside bombs.

How about another example...Michael Blake, another veteran who was in Iraq the first year of the occupation, revealed that the message US troops are given prior to their deployment is: "Islam is Evil," and "They hate us." The 22-year-old veteran, now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War <http://www.ivaw.net/>, said, "Most of the guys I was with believed it," confessing that he had witnessed innocent civilians killed indiscriminately. He said that he did not partake of the atrocities, but that it was true that "When IEDs would go off by the side of the road, the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a lot ... so innocent people were killed."

While this doesn't prove much, this does make me believe that there's a trend going on. I find it reasonable to believe that these things happen on a scale much larger than we know. I also find it reasonable to find fault with the leaders who got us into the mess, who are partly responsible for any such trend. That's my arguement, however hypothetical it may be.
 
Last edited:
Alaska, because you're eloquent, seemingly intelligent, and respected by all. When you speak, people listen. Your signal/noise ratio. You seem fair and honorable. Now, without offically joining the ilovewildalaskfanclub, can I get an inspiring response from you? :D

and i'll bet you've got a real handshake too!
 
What war crimes are you dreaming up ned,

Osama has a new vid out calling for the deaths of more Americans.

Iran restated it wants Isreal gone, plus their makin lots of yellow cake.

Any concerns these examples ned, or is it just America you see as the problem?
 
nedreck, do you have a source for the examples you referenced?

you should check out the recent issue of Soldier of Fortune. theres a good article about the capture of an iraqi responsible for planting IED's that killed a few of our men.
in fact, the articles printed in Soldier of Fortune about the war in iraq and afghanistan are by far the least biased, most truthful than anything you'll find in main stream media.
 
I dont beleive very many Iraqis are going to be standing by the side of the road or near an IED. In fact if you probably come up on a location where there are usually a lot of people on any given day and you dont see anyone...thats probably a bad sign.
 
IEDs blowing up people leaving a Mosque, rape rooms, mass graves, oh look, a video of an American having his head sawed off.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about war crimes?


EC
 
Sources? but that would elevate a specualative debate into something credible...

I think I'd gotten the quotes from a newsletter from this guy...He's a reporter I'd read some of elsewhere...
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000386.php#more

While I don't consider everything he says to be sterling, I do find his newsletters to be a little more informative than the AP.

Thanks for the tip on soldier of fortune, will DEFINITELY look into it.

Edison, it's that kind of thinking that's made it ok thus far. By that same reasoning why not sanction torture...wait.
 
war crimes are the norm and not the exception

The premis of your question is great: United States soldiers regularly commit war crimes. They are horrible, mean, illegal, unjust criminals. Just don't forget to spit on the baby killers when they return home.

this doesn't prove much, this does make me believe that there's a trend going on

It doesn't prove much, huh? Not to worry. You can find plenty more evidence in Moveon.org.

Yeah, we know. It is all President Bush's fault. Karly Rove [:eek: Karl Rove :eek: ] and the President have planned these war crimes from the beginning. Halliburton gets a secret bonus each time a baby killer commits a war crime, which (as we all know) our soldiers regularly commit.

By the way, after you prosecute every soldier in Iraq for war crimes, and you prosecute President Bush, you won't forget to prosecute every member of congress who voted to fund the war, correct? Well, at least all of the Republican members, anyway....:rolleyes:

I just hope that I'm not "bashing" and/or "overly emotional". :D :p
 
Ned, i took the liberty of rephrasing the question in a bit more objective fashion (sometimes less is more), and found there could be two different questions. Are either of these close?

[trimming]
Does the culpability of war crimes lie with the military leadership?

[rephrasing]
Should military leadership be held accountable for creating situations where there are no lawful options?

I'm in no way qualified to provide a useful opinion, so i'll opt out. But i think if you are TRULY interested in an objective opinion, you need to spend some time taking the heat out of your questions. If you're just interested in a froth-fest, disregard this note.

And for every minute you spend at http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/, spend another one here: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/
 
To answer your question in a completely serious manner, if the administration is in any way encouraging or tolerating war crimes, then I could see holding them responsible.

Judging from the fact that there are documented reports of US soldiers screwing up available and that the perpetrators are being held accountable, I think that trying to blame the administration for the actions of the men they're punishing is ... misguided. If you or anyone else have evidence - actual, hard evidence - that Bush is encouraging war crimes, you could name your price to the DNC and never have to work again in your life.

I may not agree with the latest war in the sandbox and I may not like the Republican Party's current love affair with massive spending and big, intrusive government, but it is glaringly obvious that you are starting from the position that Bush deserves to be punished and that you're looking for an excuse. Any excuse.

Additionally, I propose that your original post which uses a pejorative term to describe Bush (bashing) and makes a baseless, sweeping accusation as to the frequency of and ultimate responsibility for war crimes (overly emotional), yet also proclaims "No bashing, no overly emotional responses [...]" strikes me as hypocritical.
 
Alaska, because you're eloquent, seemingly intelligent, and respected by all. When you speak, people listen. Your signal/noise ratio. You seem fair and honorable. Now, without offically joining the ilovewildalaskfanclub, can I get an inspiring response from you?

Yeah heres my inspiring response:

I've read most of your posts with a:rolleyes: ever since this Stormfront gem you gave us:

"couldn't make a whole lotta sense unless there's some jewish hands pulling some very big strings, to say nothing of who actually owns EACH and EVERY major tv network. (look it up)"

So here is some eloquent, seemingly intelligent, and fair and honorable advice for you from the nice Jewish gun owning boy from Alaska: If you have some political agenda that you are trying to sneak in with your various posts, be enough of a man to espouse them, rather than playing rhetorical games and starting these threads in order to sneak some twisted philosophy in.

WildlaterAlaska
 
Jcims, thank you for the clarification, I lost proper perspective.

Fremmer, my premise is that the situation there has degenerated to the point that bad things that were perhaps infrequent have become commonplace. Furthermore I don't spit on my buddies coming back, I buy them a beer and listen to how f'd up things have further become. I ask this question with the same authority as I do at the watercooler. If you or anyone else wish to believe that my arguement is unfounded due to lack of hard evidence, fine, blame me for not bringing my briefcase.

Ben, I didn't say that bush was encouraging war crimes, only responsible for them. It was his boat and therefore up to him on how tight a ship he's run. So far it seems that there's open season on ALL iraqi's and torture's still okay too. Sure, some people go far enough to get on paper but who wants to punish a guy who's served his country well and was simply victim of getting burned out? Bush didn't get burned out, he was determined as hell to get in there hell or high water.

"Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war."

You're right, it was totally hypocritical of me, I shall remove it immediately...but on a side note, does this not apply to more than a few people employed at 1600 pennsylvania ave?

Alaska, while I won't even pretend to defend that beligerent, drunken, half serious statement I made, my only political agenda is seeing 3 friends of mine come home safe. I sincerely apologise for my blatently offensive foil hat/media conspiracy comment.
 
Last edited:
Allow me to remind you of your prior assertion:

the prevailing mindset of American soldiers in Iraq is the one we see that of a war criminal

And when you are sharing a beer with your buddies (presumably United States soldiers) who have returned from Iraq, how, pray tell, do they react when you tell them that they are war criminals?

I'll guess that you reserve your unsubstantiated judgment for the internet, and that you've never stated, to thier faces, that you think that they are war criminals. Oh, I mean, that they have the mindset (whatever that means) of a war criminal.

Your assertion that all of our soldiers in Iraq are war criminals is not only wholly unsubstantiated, it is absurd. Not to mention insulting to those who are serving our Country.

there's open season on ALL iraqi's and torture's still okay too

There's another good one. Yes, I'm sure all of the American soldiers -- uh, I mean all of the American war criminals -- are killing and/or torturing ALL (emphsis yours) Iraqi citizens.

And yes, this absurd, trollish Thread should be locked.
 
Back
Top