January 27th, The bloodiest day for US forces in Iraq

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Of course it would. No-one in the American government ever sanctioned or promoted the use of widespread chemical warfare as a means of winning the Vietnam war. In all its forms the U.S. opposes chemical and biological war. I can only reiterate the U.S. is not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Maybe that's too hard for you to comprehend as your views are so warped against American foreign policy that unbiased reasoning has flown out your bedroom window.

For the last time, I never said that America ever used chemical warfare on a nationwide scale, just that they HAD used it & wouldn't be adverse to using it again in an increased scale if needed. (which it would've been)

If you understand this, tell me.

Oh and, name every country that has used nuclear weapons?

There is a huge difference between atrocities committed by soldiers alone and atrocities committed with higher apporval. If you're attempting to insinuate that the U.S. were in the business of willfully violating the Geneva Conventions in both Vietnam and Iraq to further their own ends then I'm sorry but you are spouting utter rubbish.

So who's responsible for American soldiers? Me? You? Well, I tend to think that the American Government is responsible for the actions of it's troops.
And you do know that those in the Iraq videos have testified that their superiors ordered them to do what they did, don't you? And these superiors have superiors of their own? This goes all the way up the chain of command. Yeah, America will never publicly condone the atrocities that go on in warfare but really, as is the case with every other country, if it gets the 'job done', then that's the be all & end all.

I've got to ask, who do you think made American troops kill babies? The Devil? America is, & was, one of the most advanced countries in the world & you're going to tell me it didn't know what it's own soldiers were doing? I can agree that they may not have ordered it, but like I said, if it's getting the 'job done', then it happens & more importantly is ALLOWED to happen. He who unleashed the rabid dog is as guilty as the dog itself.

And if by 'further their own ends' you mean survive well, you work it out.

 

[Zero Cool]

For the last time, I never said that America ever used chemical warfare on a nationwide scale, just that they HAD used it & wouldn't be adverse to using it again in an increased scale if needed. (which it would've been)

If you understand this, tell me.

Oh and, name every country that has used nuclear weapons?

I don't dispute that. What I dispute is your insinuation that if the Vietnam war had to of continued the U.S. would have committed state sanctioned chemical atrocities against North Vietnamese soldiers as a means of winning (refer back to your original post).

So who's responsible for American soldiers? Me? You? Well, I tend to think that the American Government is responsible for the actions of it's troops.

Each soldier and each soldier alone is responsible for their actions. Their is no evidence to suggest that any US administration (from Vietnam to the present day) has ever sanctioned willful breaches of the Geneva Convention in war.

 

[Glockmatic]

Shit rolls downhill, actions of soldiers is the responsability of officers and commanders.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I don't dispute that. What I dispute is your insinuation that if the Vietnam war had to of continued the U.S. would have committed state sanctioned chemical atrocities against North Vietnamese soldiers as a means of winning (refer back to your original post).

Don't need to refer back to my original post, I stand by what I said. If the war had continued I believe the US would've increased it's usage of chemical warfare. They had already used it & their people (troops & civilians) & finances wouldn't be able to take the Vietnam war much longer thus, the quickest solution would've been turned to. This being chemical warfare. (Which, again, they had already used so this wasn't anything new & extreme)

Each soldier and each soldier alone is responsible for their actions. Their is no evidence to suggest that any US administration (from Vietnam to the present day) has ever sanctioned willful breaches of the Geneva Convention in war.

True, there is no concrete evidence, but there rarely is when it comes to professional governements. I mean, how many people could testify that Hitler, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ordered the killing of every last person (outwith his own forces) that died during WWII? Yet circumstantial evidence says otherwise.

Like I said, the American government were not completely incompetant. Actually before I go any further tell me, do you believe that the American government had no idea that babies & civilians were being killed in Vietnam?

 

[Zero Cool]

Don't need to refer back to my original post, I stand by what I said. If the war had continued I believe the US would've increased it's usage of chemical warfare. They had already used it & their people (troops & civilians) & finances wouldn't be able to take the Vietnam war much longer thus, the quickest solution would've been turned to. This being chemical warfare. (Which, again, they had already used so this wasn't anything new & extreme)

Based upon all the evidence there is little validity to that line of reasoning.

True, there is no concrete evidence, but there rarely is when it comes to professional governements. I mean, how many people could testify that Hitler, beyond a shadow of a doubt, ordered the killing of every last person (outwith his own forces) that died during WWII? Yet circumstantial evidence says otherwise.

Like I said, the American government were not completely incompetant. Actually before I go any further tell me, do you believe that the American government had no idea that babies & civilians were being killed in Vietnam?

They would have been informed about it from military sources of course. However to say they sanctioned or approved of it is ludicrous. In relation to Hitler, evidence gathered from Himmler, Bormann and the Wansee Conference provide direct evidence of Hitler's sanctioning of the Holocaust. As if any was needed.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

They would have been informed about it from military sources of course. However to say they sanctioned or approved of it is ludicrous. In relation to Hitler, evidence gathered from Himmler, Bormann and the Wansee Conference provide direct evidence of Hitler's sanctioning of the Holocaust. As if any was needed.

So the American Government woudl've been informed - I agree. They didn't 'sanction' it - I agree.

Answer this, did they allow it to happen? (ie. they did not pull out all troops reported doing this)

As for Himmler & the other scum, they're to be believe & yet those in the Iraq videos are not? Why?

 

[Zero Cool]

So the American Government woudl've been informed - I agree. They didn't 'sanction' it - I agree.

Answer this, did they allow it to happen? (ie. they did not pull out all troops reported doing this)

As for Himmler & the other scum, they're to be believe & yet those in the Iraq videos are not? Why?

I never said those in the Iraq videos are not to be believed, however I dispute the accusation that those in the top echelons of power had any idea what was going on in Abu Ghraib, once they found out about it proper action was taken. Any soldiers in Vietnam who were convicted of committing atrocites were court-martialled and given proper sentincing. Therefore the U.S. administration did all it reasonably could to deal with the problem.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Any soldiers in Vietnam who were convicted of committing atrocites were court-martialled and given proper sentincing. Therefore the U.S. administration did all it reasonably could to deal with the problem.

Read this published in May 2004;

For 37 years former Army journalist Dennis Stout has waited for answers - and justice - after witnessing members of an elite platoon in Vietnam kill unarmed civilians.
The Army conducted a major probe in the 1970s but buried the results and did not charge anyone. After The Blade exposed the atrocities in October, the Army began reviewing its case again - even reinterviewing Mr. Stout - and told U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland) that answers would be available at the end of March.

They're still waiting.

"I hope that the Army today is taking seriously the crimes committed by people in uniform in 1967, and the failure of the Army to prosecute even one of those cases," Mr. Kucinich wrote.

Facing enemy ambushes and booby traps, some soldiers turned their weapons on unarmed men, women, and children in a slaughter through two provinces in the Central Highlands from May to November, 1967, the longest-known series of atrocities by a battle unit in Vietnam, with a death toll estimated in the hundreds.


Mr. Kucinich said he is waiting for findings from the latest Army Tiger Force probe, under which:

w●Col. William Condron, chief of criminal law for the judge advocate general's office, would determine how the original case was dropped and who ordered it dropped. Allegations were still secret, and prosecution risked publicity.

w●Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the Army's top law-enforcement officer, would decide whether to recommend prosecutions of anyone in the case, including any of the 18 former soldiers who originally have been found by Army investigators to have committed crimes. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and retired soldiers still could be prosecuted.

General Ryder is also a key player in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, having issued a classified report in November that warned of problems in the Iraqi prison system. Still, Mr. Stout is skeptical the Army will follow through on its latest Tiger Force inquiry, noting how no one has been prosecuted for crimes he has long reported from the Quang Ngai province, including the execution of 35 women and children in a field in July, 1967.

"I don't think the culture has changed a bit," said Mr. Stout, now a contractor in Arizona.

Army agents this year also interviewed former medic Rion Causey, who said officers systematically ordered the platoon to kill all males in part of Quang Nam province.

The California nuclear engineer is also frustrated. "There's no sense in dragging this out," he said.

 

[TecK NeeX]

however I dispute the accusation that those in the top echelons of power had any idea what was going on in Abu Ghraib, once they found out about it proper action was taken

lol do you really believe that? once the pictures showing detanees being tortured and mistreated in the Abu Ghraib prison was leaked to the public, they had NO choice but to take the 'proper' action immediately, top officials knew about it all along, months before it was 'handled' and 'taken care' of. even today do you realy think mistreatment of iraqi prisoners has stopped? fuck no! only this time they're making sure no cameras are found at the scene of the crime

 

[Zero Cool]

Read this published in May 2004;

For 37 years former Army journalist Dennis Stout has waited for answers - and justice - after witnessing members of an elite platoon in Vietnam kill unarmed civilians.
The Army conducted a major probe in the 1970s but buried the results and did not charge anyone. After The Blade exposed the atrocities in October, the Army began reviewing its case again - even reinterviewing Mr. Stout - and told U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland) that answers would be available at the end of March.

They're still waiting.

"I hope that the Army today is taking seriously the crimes committed by people in uniform in 1967, and the failure of the Army to prosecute even one of those cases," Mr. Kucinich wrote.

Facing enemy ambushes and booby traps, some soldiers turned their weapons on unarmed men, women, and children in a slaughter through two provinces in the Central Highlands from May to November, 1967, the longest-known series of atrocities by a battle unit in Vietnam, with a death toll estimated in the hundreds.


Mr. Kucinich said he is waiting for findings from the latest Army Tiger Force probe, under which:

w●Col. William Condron, chief of criminal law for the judge advocate general's office, would determine how the original case was dropped and who ordered it dropped. Allegations were still secret, and prosecution risked publicity.

w●Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the Army's top law-enforcement officer, would decide whether to recommend prosecutions of anyone in the case, including any of the 18 former soldiers who originally have been found by Army investigators to have committed crimes. There is no statute of limitations on murder, and retired soldiers still could be prosecuted.

General Ryder is also a key player in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, having issued a classified report in November that warned of problems in the Iraqi prison system. Still, Mr. Stout is skeptical the Army will follow through on its latest Tiger Force inquiry, noting how no one has been prosecuted for crimes he has long reported from the Quang Ngai province, including the execution of 35 women and children in a field in July, 1967.

"I don't think the culture has changed a bit," said Mr. Stout, now a contractor in Arizona.

Army agents this year also interviewed former medic Rion Causey, who said officers systematically ordered the platoon to kill all males in part of Quang Nam province.

The California nuclear engineer is also frustrated. "There's no sense in dragging this out," he said.

That's the best you evidence you can provide me with? One swallow doesn't make a summer.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

That's the best you evidence you can provide me with? One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Well, I can't read the minds of dead men such as Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon.

I also am not involved in the US legal system, so yes, FACTS are the best evidence I can come up with.

Can you do better?

 

[Zero Cool]

Well, I can't read the minds of dead men such as Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon.

I also am not involved in the US legal system, so yes, FACTS are the best evidence I can come up with.

Can you do better?

I wouldn't call your example of one journalists claim that a case of soldiers killing civillians has been forgotten "evidence" of a higher conspiracy to let the guilty of the hook.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I wouldn't call your example of one journalists claim that a case of soldiers killing civillians has been forgotten "evidence" of a higher conspiracy to let the guilty of the hook.

'Conspiracy' makes it sound like something that the powers that be had plotted carefully & that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they ignored it/let it slide/turned a blind eye/allowed it to happen.

I mean, 'conspiracy' makes it sound like they did something, my whole point regarding their breaching of the Geneva Convention is that did very little. (I do accept that some were 'punished' - if you can even call it that.)

 

[Zero Cool]

'Conspiracy' makes it sound like something that the powers that be had plotted carefully & that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying they ignored it/let it slide/turned a blind eye/allowed it to happen.

I mean, 'conspiracy' makes it sound like they did something, my whole point regarding their breaching of the Geneva Convention is that did very little. (I do accept that some were 'punished' - if you can even call it that.)

As with any armed forces cases such as the aforementioned are unfortunately all to likely to happen. But for the most part any soldier, both in Vietnam or present-day Iraq, who were/are found guilty of misdemenours are punished in accordance with the serevity of their crime.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

As with any armed forces cases such as the aforementioned are unfortunately all to likely to happen. But for the most part any soldier, both in Vietnam or present-day Iraq, who were/are found guilty of misdemenours are punished in accordance with the serevity of their crime.

True, in most cases.

There are some where, the 'severity of their crime' is matched up against their years of service & they get off with little punishment.

Also, like most professions, the army tend to look after their own, & for someone to be found guilty they have to be reported (how many people testify against one of their own) & evidence has to be produced which isn't always easy.
Plus, I'm sure a lot of the soldiers can be let off on mental grounds.

 

[XxXxDanXxXx]

Military law is extremely strict about some matters. Refusal to obey a command can be considered mutany, thus you can be shot by your C.O. As a former marine, I can tell you that infantrymen and other combatants develope an instinct to kill. I can not speak for everyone found guilty of some sort of war crime. I remember I was on patrol with two other marines and was pelted with rocks. We are not allowed to harm non combatants, but doesn't those rocks make them a combatant? Alot of the times, Soldiers are egged on and made out to look like a big bad evil man. Not all the time, but most of the time. Do not let a few bad soldiers shape your opinion about your everyday marine or soldier.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

Military law is extremely strict about some matters. Refusal to obey a command can be considered mutany, thus you can be shot by your C.O. As a former marine, I can tell you that infantrymen and other combatants develope an instinct to kill. I can not speak for everyone found guilty of some sort of war crime. I remember I was on patrol with two other marines and was pelted with rocks. We are not allowed to harm non combatants, but doesn't those rocks make them a combatant? Alot of the times, Soldiers are egged on and made out to look like a big bad evil man. Not all the time, but most of the time. Do not let a few bad soldiers shape your opinion about your everyday marine or soldier.

However, would you not agree that a soldier unjustly killing 'one of them' is perceived by his fellow soldiers as a crime much different to refusing to fight alongside his countrymen?

 

[ImmortalTech]

God Bless the soldiers in Iraq fighting for FREEDOM... i dont mean the Americans

.... No matter how much the media makes it look like Sadaam supporters are responsible for these uprisings in Iraq, thats bullshit. Cuz most people in Iraq dont even support Sadaam or his regime, but at the same time they dont need no1 else to come up in there country rape and murder their people and then tell them how to live their lives.