No wonder they hate us

[Embar Angylwrath]

We killed nearly 200,000 innocent civilians in Japan with two atomic bombs at the end of WWII, Dd. I don't remember us being marginalized or ousted by the civilized world.

That is because, contrary to what revisionists want you to think, we dropped those bombs on military installations and military industrial centers.

Ok.. how about Dresden then? Non-military target, mostly civilians and refugees. Depending on who you talk to, deaths in the range of 35,000 - 100,000. Didn't seem to be much blowback for that. To the Brits or to the Americans. Why?

Because we won.

And Dd.. not much blowback on the Australians for a campaign of genocide directed against the Aborigines either. (The US shares similar shame with the American natives). Why no lasting repurcussions?

Because we won.

No one wages a war to take second place. If they do, they should be shot as a traitor.

[Trollbait]

No one wages a war to take second place. If they do, they should be shot as a traitor.

QFE

[Chants Evensong]

Something about this Post article isn't adding up.

Apparently, some soldiers are being tried for murder. During the murder trial a sworn statement emerges from a Capt. Didier briefly describing a "classified" bait program where "bait" is dropped on the ground and whoever picks it up is "engaged".

The reader is led to believe that by "engaged", Capt. Didier means "shot", which may be the case, and, if so, would be extraordinarily stupid and vile. Fog of war or no fog, it is inexcusable.

But the article never makes that connection. Made me go hmmmm.

Then I read this:

Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.

Ok, so a sniper team noticed someone placing wires on a road. He was not merely picking up bait, he was doing something far more suspicious. If, as the article leads us to believe, sniper teams shoot people picking up bait, then why did they not shoot this man doing something far more suspicious? Why did they send a guy in to "approach" him at close range? I mean if they are a bunch of trigger happy fools, would it not have been easier to shoot the guy? Why the extra layer of procedure?

It doesn't add up.

What I do find interesting is the transparency of our military. I am not saying that our military is completely transparent, nor should it be. But what we have here is an Iraqi population occupied by a military that actually has the sense of justice to try its own for murder, with potentially dire consequences for those tried.

Is that what they hate us for? Because they didn't that when they were occupied by Saddam's army.

[Kulaf]

We killed nearly 200,000 innocent civilians in Japan with two atomic bombs at the end of WWII, Dd. I don't remember us being marginalized or ousted by the civilized world.

That is because, contrary to what revisionists want you to think, we dropped those bombs on military installations and military industrial centers.

Ok.. how about Dresden then? Non-military target, mostly civilians and refugees. Depending on who you talk to, deaths in the range of 35,000 - 100,000. Didn't seem to be much blowback for that. To the Brits or to the Americans. Why?

Because we won.

And Dd.. not much blowback on the Australians for a campaign of genocide directed against the Aborigines either. (The US shares similar shame with the American natives). Why no lasting repurcussions?

Because we won.

No one wages a war to take second place. If they do, they should be shot as a traitor.

Not really because we won......but because reporters back in WWII painted a picture of the war as heroic......and people did not have CNN showing them streaming video live from embedded reporters.

We lost a lot of our will to wage war during Vietnam and the endless stream of media reporting casualties on the evening news.

[Ddrak]

The difference there is the US and Japan were already several years into a declared war between nations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also industrial centers, while dropping a bomb on Tokyo would have been a significantly more political act. Contrast that with something along the lines of the military using VX on a town in some blue state just because they were suspected of not towing the correct political line - that's the sort of thing Al Qadea is doing, and if you really want to get serious about using their own tactics then that's the sort of thing you're advocating.

One main reason the US is still (comparatively) seen as the good guys is the perception of honor, restraint and respect that the military is supposed to show. I've yet to find a military person that truly advocates acting like Al Qaeda to win at all costs. All the military folks I know would simply refuse an order to kill unarmed and obviously innocent bystanders, including children and babies, for a political goal.

Dd

[Ddrak]

On Dresden - the number killed was around 25,000. Whoever told you 35-100k was misinformed. It was also the first time the allied population seriously questioned the methods used by the troops, with even Churchill himself distancing him from the event basically said "Don't ever do that shit again". Had it not been a war between state actors that had been playing at that time for half a decade, then the blowback would have been vast.

On the Aboriginals - guess you've never lived in Australia. There's continual blowback. Politics are vastly skewed by the whole Aboriginal issue of how to compensate an entire race for past wrongs and virtual extinction. I even get questioned about the whole thing over here by people when they find out I'm Australian. No lasting repercussions? Surely you jest, sire.

I think you've lost sight of what "winning" is. If you win the military battle but lose your national identity, lose your national respect and lose your national pride then I don't think you won the war, in fact, you lost.

No one should advocate the tactics of Al Qaeda as any sort of avenue to winning a war. That just shows a clear misunderstanding of "winning".

Dd (sorry for the double post - missed the second page)

[Select]

How would those military folks react to people like Embar wanting to place a few babies on stakes if it would mean a 'win'?

[Embar Angylwrath]

They'd push for me to be Commander in Chief.

[Trollbait]

How would those military folks react to people like Embar wanting to place a few babies on stakes if it would mean a 'win'?

We would refuse to comply with the unlawful order citing articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ since such an order would be deemed unlawful by the UCMJ and according to the UCMJ it is the duty of every soldier to refuse compliance with an unlawful order.

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.


(a) Lawfulness of the order.


(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Not that it will ever happne... but I wonder if the President, as Commander-in-Chief, could issue an executive order suspending the application of the UCMJ?

[Arathena]

How would those military folks react to people like Embar wanting to place a few babies on stakes if it would mean a 'win'?

I am not military. But this is America, not Sparta.


Embar: Though he is commander in chief, the President does NOT have the power to suspend the rules. That power lies solely with Congress, via Acticle 1, Section 8. The proper recourse to such an action would be for the military to ignore the order, and for Congress to immediately begin impeachment proceedures for high treason.

[Klast Brell]

Something about this Post article isn't adding up.

Apparently, some soldiers are being tried for murder. During the murder trial a sworn statement emerges from a Capt. Didier briefly describing a "classified" bait program where "bait" is dropped on the ground and whoever picks it up is "engaged".

The reader is led to believe that by "engaged", Capt. Didier means "shot", which may be the case, and, if so, would be extraordinarily stupid and vile. Fog of war or no fog, it is inexcusable.

But the article never makes that connection. Made me go hmmmm.

Then I read this:

Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.

Ok, so a sniper team noticed someone placing wires on a road. He was not merely picking up bait, he was doing something far more suspicious. If, as the article leads us to believe, sniper teams shoot people picking up bait, then why did they not shoot this man doing something far more suspicious? Why did they send a guy in to "approach" him at close range? I mean if they are a bunch of trigger happy fools, would it not have been easier to shoot the guy? Why the extra layer of procedure?

It doesn't add up.

The article also says that they are accused of placing weapons next to people they shot or placing spools of wire in their pockets to justify the shooting after the fact. Now who is the source for the quote about seeing a guy messing with wires on the road? the same guys accused of planting spools of wire?

[Embar Angylwrath]

The article also says that they are accused of placing weapons next to people they shot or placing spools of wire in their pockets to justify the shooting after the fact. Now who is the source for the quote about seeing a guy messing with wires on the road? the same guys accused of planting spools of wire?

I think the source for the reports of planted weapons and the placement of spools of wire after-the-fact is this person.

[Finglefinn]

Oh yeah. Those "used" casings. Uh huh.

[Chants Evensong]

The article also says that they are accused of placing weapons next to people they shot or placing spools of wire in their pockets to justify the shooting after the fact. Now who is the source for the quote about seeing a guy messing with wires on the road? the same guys accused of planting spools of wire?

Let's take a look at the language in the article.

Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.

I bet the Post's source of this information about the wires being placed in the road is the charging documents themselves or members of the prosecution's team. So the guys trying these "spool planters" for murder are saying its a fact. The accused don't really seem to be challenging that assertion. The dispute seems to be whether the shooting was justified.

[Ddrak]

I bet the Post's source of this information about the wires being placed in the road is the charging documents themselves or members of the prosecution's team. So the guys trying these "spool planters" for murder are saying its a fact. The accused don't really seem to be challenging that assertion. The dispute seems to be whether the shooting was justified.

That's pretty much what I read from it too.

Dd

[Kulaf]

The accuser is another US soldier btw......just in case there is any actual confusion.

[Mukik]

Its really easy to be armchair soldiers some 5000 miles from the action. Would I be different? I have no idea. I was in the corps back in 89-95, so yea, we had desert storm, but being a radar technician I didnt see any action. These guys might have seen thier own buddies killed by a sniper and then find a video of it on youtube later that day. Its very brutal, but it is survival tactics from some very scared people. yea its over board and not neccessary, being said from a former marine 5000 miles away from the comfort of my job.

We do have guidelines based off the geneva convetion and the ucmj. These guys are in the mix and know most of the hadgi's over there are not going to follow the same guidelines. Thats what end up seperating the civilized from the barbaric. Unfortunately the barbaric are usually the ones that come home from such travisties in higher numbers. This war plain sucks, its for fucking oil and it basically disgusts me that Bush hasnt been tried yet for so many various crimes.

[Klast Brell]

Its really easy to be armchair soldiers some 5000 miles from the action. Would I be different?

Did you arm chair John Kerry's performance in Vietnam?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its really easy to be armchair soldiers some 5000 miles from the action. Would I be different?

Did you arm chair John Kerry's performance in Vietnam?

Some of us aren't sure he was actually there, and if he was, what he did there.