War crimes by US troops

[Who is like God arbour]

Your describing US troops not Commonwealth troops, who get extensive training on the culture they are policing. In East Timor an Australian infantry platoon had an armed standoff with an African AU nations troops, who were Islamic I believe over the fact that these AU troops were going to rape a village worth of woman and children. They even had an armed helicopter to back them up. The AU troops had to resort to raping goats because the Western troops wouldn't let them rape the locals. So you see the quality that you want to deal in. This is why the problem in Darfur is not getting any better, because the AU troops deployed are as useless as tits on a bull and refuse to engage the militia. And there are already reports of rapes coming out, being performed by the AU troops.

I have not enough informations about the education and training of most of the african forces. But I know that in many there is no real education and training. They take one and put him in a uniform and give him a weapon and declare that he is now a soldier. If he dies - there are enough others who can take his uniform and weapon.

But what is with nations like Egypt or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Jordan? I have choosen these nations because they have - as far as I know - real and good educated and trained forces. I doubt that forces of them would behave like in the example you have described - especially if they know that they are watched by the world public.

The SC just approves the general use of force and the approval of the mission. The actual ROE is decided by UN flunkies.

Surly, but the SC gives guidelines and has to permit the ROE. That it doesn't work out each single detail itself should be self-evident.

Yeah good luck with that. Nine times out of ten you can't get the SC to agree on the colour of the sky. You'll never get them to enforce an ROE with balls on a mission, even if that was part of their pervue.

That's a political question. I think it is possible. The whole world could see that that would be the better solution. Which nation would want to look as the nation which has prevented that the Iraq could get peace?

If the U.S. would be really supporting that idea, it would be makeable.

And if not, the U.S. could say at least that they have tried it and that it is not their fault that other nations have prevented it.

[Cpl Kendall]

But what is with nations like Egypt or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Jordan? I have choosen these nations because they have - as far as I know - real and good educated and trained forces. I doubt that forces of them would behave like in the example you have described - especially if they know that they are watched by the world public.

Let me put it in simple terms: there is not a national military in the Middle East that is not a joke. The fact that they can't even defeat Israel while united, who itself has a farce of a military speaks volumes on their military capacity.

Surly, but the SC gives guidelines and has to permit the ROE. That it doesn't work out each single detail itself should be self-evident.

No it doesn't, the SC just approves the mission. It has no say over the ROE of the mission and I suspect doesn't care.

That's a political question. I think it is possible. The whole world could see that that would be the better solution. Which nation would want to look as the nation which has prevented that the Iraq could get peace?

If the U.S. would be really supporting that idea, it would be makeable.

And if not, the U.S. could say at least that they have tried it and that it is not their fault that other nations have prevented it.

You have a very naive view of the world my friend.

[Who is like God arbour]

But what is with nations like Egypt or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Jordan? I have choosen these nations because they have - as far as I know - real and good educated and trained forces. I doubt that forces of them would behave like in the example you have described - especially if they know that they are watched by the world public.

Let me put it in simple terms: there is not a national military in the Middle East that is not a joke. The fact that they can't even defeat Israel while united, who itself has a farce of a military speaks volumes on their military capacity.

That was then. But relevant is only what is now.

• • • The armed forces of Egypt are the largest on the African continent and one of the biggest in the world (ranked 11th), consisting of the Egyptian Army, Egyptian Navy, Egyptian Air Force and Egyptian Air Defense Command.
      
      Egypt maintains a large paramilitary force under the control of the Ministry of Interior. They number around 250,000 strong and are known as the Central Security Forces. The government also has a relatively strong National Guard and Border Security Forces however they, unlike the Central Security Forces, come under the control of the Ministry of Defence and are reported to number 60,000 and 20,000 respectively.
      
      The Commander-in-Chief is Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. The Chief of Staff is Lt. Gen. Sami Hafez Enan.
      
      The armed forces inventory includes equipment from the United States, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, the former Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China. Equipment from the former Soviet Union is being progressively replaced by more modern American, French, and British equipment, a significant portion of which is built under license in Egypt, such as the M1 Abrams tank. To bolster stability and moderation in the region, Egypt has provided military assistance and training to a number of African and Arab states. Although not a NATO member, Egypt remains a strong military and strategic partner and is a participant in NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue forum. It is the strongest military power in Africa. Egypt is the only Arab country with a Spy satellite and will launch another one by the end of 2007.

Surly, but the SC gives guidelines and has to permit the ROE. That it doesn't work out each single detail itself should be self-evident.

No it doesn't, the SC just approves the mission. It has no say over the ROE of the mission and I suspect doesn't care.

You should give reasons for that claim. That's really new to me. It's the SC who has the competence to authorize such a mission. Why should it not have the competence to give guidelines to the ROE and permit it in the end?

That's a political question. I think it is possible. The whole world could see that that would be the better solution. Which nation would want to look as the nation which has prevented that the Iraq could get peace?

If the U.S. would be really supporting that idea, it would be makeable.

And if not, the U.S. could say at least that they have tried it and that it is not their fault that other nations have prevented it.

You have a very naive view of the world my friend.

Because I think that it is within the realms of possibility? I don't think that it would be a walk in the park. But it is possible.

And nowadays the governments have to pay attention to their image in the world public. That's why the U.S. has tried to justify their wars in the public and has not simply attacked without giving a reason.
(That the reason was wrong is another matter.)

Imagine the U.N. ambassadors who has to say to a camera that he has objected such a plan which could save hundred-thousands of Iraqis and then the interviews with the correspondenting chief of state.

Alone, that is not enough.

But it could be deciding.

[Cpl Kendall]

That was then. But relevant is only what is now.

*snip*

What makes you think that because they have modern equipment that they are competent? Middle Eastern militaries are delibertly kept undertrained so that they don't represent a threat to the regime.

You should give reasons for that claim. That's really new to me. It's the SC who has the competence to authorize such a mission. Why should it not have the competence to give guidelines to the ROE and permit it in the end?

The reason: because it's not their goddamned job that's why.

Because I think that it is within the realms of possibility? I don't think that it would be a walk in the park. But it is possible.

And nowadays the governments have to pay attention to their image in the world public. That's why the U.S. has tried to justify their wars in the public and has not simply attacked without giving a reason.
(That the reason was wrong is another matter.)

Imagine the U.N. ambassadors who has to say to a camera that he has objected such a plan which could save hundred-thousands of Iraqis and then the interviews with the correspondenting chief of state.

Alone, that is not enough.

But it could be deciding.

No your naive because you have no bloody understanding of:

A: how military forces around the world work

and

B: how real world politics work.

The UN will never do anything in Iraq because the US will not allow it. Simple as that and as they have a veto in the SC they can do whatever the frak they want.

[Who is like God arbour]

That was then. But relevant is only what is now.

*snip*

What makes you think that because they have modern equipment that they are competent? Middle Eastern militaries are delibertly kept undertrained so that they don't represent a threat to the regime.

Who says that I think that?

I have only responded to your examples of the Arab-Israeli War from 1948, the Six-Day War from 1967 or the Yom Kippur War from 1973 - or whatever else you have meant when you said that they couldn't even defeat Israel while united.

That was then. And I wanted to know, what is now.

For that I have given a quote from Wikipedia - without any valuation. I have no reliable data about Middle Eastern militaries. That's why I can't verify what is written on Wikipedia.

But I see on Wikipedia that there is an undergraduate military school for each branch of the Egyptian Military establishment, and they include:

• Air Defenses Academy
• Egyptian Air Academy
• Military Academy
• Military Technical College
• Naval Academy
• Nasser Academy
• Technical Institute

I don't know how good these military schools are. But alone their existence implies that the military of Egypt is not delibertly kept undertrained. To be honest, that are more military schools than Germany has. We have only two Universities for the German Federal Armed Forces. And these aren't even specialised for the different branches. And I doubt that you would say that the German Bundeswehr is delibertly kept undertrained.

You should give reasons for that claim. That's really new to me. It's the SC who has the competence to authorize such a mission. Why should it not have the competence to give guidelines to the ROE and permit it in the end?

The reason: because it's not their goddamned job that's why.

What is not the job of the SC?

It's his job to authorize the use of force according to Art. 42 UN Charta.

Art. 43 and the following are irrelevant because regular U.N. forces with an own Military Staff Committee were never created.

That means that the SC is responsible for the authorization of such a mission and self-evident also for its details like the ROE.

That it delegate this job doesn't mean that the SC isn't responsinle anymore.

And if you think that the SC can authorize such a mission but has no say in the ROE and other details, who is then responsible?

And what would happen if that ominous person enact ROE that don't find the favor of the SC?

Because I think that it is within the realms of possibility? I don't think that it would be a walk in the park. But it is possible.

And nowadays the governments have to pay attention to their image in the world public. That's why the U.S. has tried to justify their wars in the public and has not simply attacked without giving a reason.
(That the reason was wrong is another matter.)

Imagine the U.N. ambassadors who has to say to a camera that he has objected such a plan which could save hundred-thousands of Iraqis and then the interviews with the correspondenting chief of state.

Alone, that is not enough.

But it could be deciding.

No your naive because you have no bloody understanding of:

A: how military forces around the world work

and

B: how real world politics work.

The UN will never do anything in Iraq because the US will not allow it. Simple as that and as they have a veto in the SC they can do whatever the frak they want.

The premise was that the U.S. supports that idea. If they don't support it, it is clear that it would never happen.

And I know that the U.S. government is not willing to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. They would lose their influence and the whole war would be for nothing. Bush was not really interessted to install a democratic, constitutional state wich will respect human rights. That was only his justification he has given the public.

And it was goal of my little map exercise to show exactly that. If it would have been his goal to install a democratic, constitutional state wich will respect human rights, he would support such an idea or similar concepts.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Let me put it in simple terms: there is not a national military in the Middle East that is not a joke. The fact that they can't even defeat Israel while united, who itself has a farce of a military speaks volumes on their military capacity.

Point of fact: Israel is a heavily militarized state.

Israel tends to spend about 10% of its GDP on the military (currently down to 7.3%), in addition to US military aid that averages on the order of billions of dollars per year. As a matter of fact, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon combined don't match the expenditures made on Israel's armed forces (a fact that I suspect was true during the 1967 and 1973 conflicts), and Israel has almost always had a technological edge. Probably an edge in training, too.

There are two regional powers that can claim to match or exceed current Israeli military spending (at a time when Israel is primarily concerned about Palestinians rather than an Iraqi army built large by US aid or a pan-Arab alliance) are the Saudis and the Turks.

Turkey has generally been a pretty serious regional power. Turkey fields one of the world's largest armies. They've been a consistent military spender, a key member of NATO through the Cold War, and haven't taken serious losses since WWI. Turkey is a long-standing ally of both Israel and the US, and Israel has purchased plenty of military equipment of Turkish manufacture.

Saudi Arabia actually outspends Turkey and Israel combined, and is listed as an "enemy country" by Israel. However, they've never done more than send relatively small contributions to joint Arab forces - small enough to avoid testing whether the US values Israel or Saudi Arabia more.

[SailorSaturn13]

I have now read the entire thread, and it makes me VERY sad.
I used to know all You Trekkies as civilized persons. Yet here you behave yourselves in the worst SDN manner, using labels like "Holocaust deniers" freely. People, you should be polite even if you disagree with each other - especially then, actually.

Now points.

To 2046:

YES the Invasion if Afganistan was justified, but invasion in Iraq was not. The SC DID NOT give a similar mandate about Iraq as did with Afganistan. Bush simply lied about Iraq. The land was actually never able to produce any of WMD. The gas it used on Kurds was sold to Hussejn by USA. Most of it would be useless todY ANYWAY having decayed since. Most of evidence Bush presented in Iraq case, was either a known lie or a weak evidence which Bush declared believable solely because it was pro war while all anti-war evidence was ignored. He has admitted since that all his evidence was faulty.

The main point now, however is not the legality of STARTING a war but HOW it is waged. And basically, it is waged in Imperial style: troopers raping iraqis and murdering whole families to cover up, shooting randomly in the crowd upon being attacked, (and tolerating such behaviour from "Blackwater" personal, for example), torturing people. And YES, sleep deprivaion, being stripped naked and threatened by dogs, forced to build human pyramids while naked, given electric shocks, and then being forced to stand on a stool for hours, after being told that if you fall, you''ll be electrocuted to death IS TORTURE, by all sane definitions. Lea's limbs werent chipped off either, I remember.

US Army should remember WE ARE ALL HUMANS and do not wage this war in style of human-cylon war from BSG2003 ("You can't rape a machine", remember?)

Ah, and now Hiroshima was an evil American atrocity! Good heavens, what a horrifying place your mind must be. Tell me, do you like Che Guevara?

But I digress. I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that lives on both sides were saved from a protracted invasion, though of course at that moment in history we were far more concerned with our own. In fact, I won't repeat all the arguments with you. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfectly ethical and flawless in every way, though Nagasaki was a bit of a misdrop and so got contained by the terrain. Oh well. It made the point.

Given the opportunity and a time machine, I'd drop the bombs again myself. And I'd be damn happy to do it, smoking a cigar and having a swig of Gentleman Jack afterward, laughing in your face.

How is it that you can make some flawlessly logical post on Trek/Wars stuff, then 180 your way on the same topic, and also be so scandalously wrong here? Is your mind really that compartmentalized in regards to where your logic budget goes? Shit, man, if you have so little to go around I'd much rather you spend it on politics and become a esteemed fan of Star Wars than spend it on (some of) your Trek/Wars ideas and be a conspiracy wacko.

Well that is a good point. You once claimed Empire was evil, and everybody thinking differently was insane. As a proof you cited Alderaan. Yet now you claim it was perfectly fine to nuke Hiroshima. Note that Alderaan was openly helping the rebels, which were terrorists to the Empire. It's senator and daughter of Alderaan's ruler stole a vital information and was trying to get it to Rebels. Would this justify blowing Alderaan, by the same logic? Would the logic "Better blow one planet and force the Rebels to stop out of fear than fight with them on countless planets and loosing Imperial lives and maybe even more civilian lives (fighting on thousands of planets would ultimately cost more lives that Alderaan had)" be a perfectly valid reason to destroy the planet? How is that different?

[SailorSaturn13]

you just confirmed Wayne Poe's suggestion about your headwear

So you bitch when we kick their asses and you bitch when we don't? You bitch when we attack and you bitch when we pick our battles. Don't you recognize the fact that you're just bitching about the U.S. no matter what it does?

The point is that you punish one country for things you help others to accomplish. Or more exact oppsing countries are punished for things far less bad that USA's 'allies' do without punishment. It is indeed stupid to breed "small pigs" while waging war on "big pigs". "Small pigs" will grow up someday.

1. US soldiers sent abroad, numbering in the many tens of thousands, unfortunately include a handful of criminal decidedly impolite person(s), lefty plants, and other assorted undesirables. Therefore a handful of terrible events have occurred, such as Abu Gharaib, the rapist, and the murderer. Compared to all past wars this is miniscule, and compared to even a civilian population of the same number such things are ridiculous to dwell upon with the pretense of a point.

It actually looks like the US high ranked officials were tolerating such behaviour until no longer possible - and then punished only the lowest culprits. Also US tactics are bent on minimazing own lossen EVEN if this effectively results in many additional civilian deaths.


Let me elaborate on that. Imagine a police car is patrolling busy street in L.A and suddenly is shot at from an unknown location. Imagine further, the cops would start to shoot randomly in the surrounding crowd, killing some and injurig others. They surely would be charged with murder, and no sane person would try to downplay the incident. But the Blackwater personal was not prosecuted. Why? bexause Iraqis are lower beings? And didn't marines sometimes do the same?

2....
3.... Right. Both. So stick in Afganistan and finish there before starting another war!

4. The War in Iraq was legal in the US, authorized by the UN, and supported by our allies of consequence. More importantly, it was dead right. Based on intelligence long known internationally, intel that could not be disproved since Saddam never held properly to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, the United States removed Saddam from power. His efforts to make the world believe he had nuclear and other WMD facilities, his known willingness to use them, and all that and more mixed with his own terrorist acts (per Wilga) and his known contacts with other terrorist Islamic extremist groups including Al Qaeda, made him a clear and present danger to the United States specifically, and international peace and justice generally.

The war was NOT authorized by UN. The intelligence was actually saying Iraq could not produce WMD's on its own, though it could still have some chemical weapons which USA previously SOLD to it. Hussejn never harbored or tolerated Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He has contacts, but this is not prohibited by international law. Bush deliberately misinterpreted intelligence by believing Pro-WMD sources while discarding others. He also LIED to security Counsil. Prior to attack international investigator were finally admitted to Iraq and have found nothing.

Leftist and conspiracist ideals of the sort espoused in this thread have weakened international security. North Korea has a nuke-lette, and successfully blackmailed the world instead of getting its ass kicked. Terror-sponsor Iran, headed by a modern-day Hitler-esque madman, is close to a real nuke. Even broken Russia is resurgent, behaving more and more like the Soviet Union every day as it supports Iran and other similar regimes. Other dictators and madmen are emboldened, and the forces of world evil are unifying

No, the American arrogance has weakened security. The reason the USA hasn't adequately responded to Iran is they cannot, with all their resourses tied in Iraq. Same with North Korea. And US rhetoric is driving people and countries in the hands of radical ideas and politicans. If any country not having hundred nukes feel it can be invaded by USA at any time... what do you exoect? USA should get real and negotiate ... not with Iran of course, but with Germany, France and India. Together, they will have the power to put Iran and Korea in place.

[SailorSaturn13]

for all our failings, for all our fears and doubts, and for all our missteps, the United States has, for the last 70 years at least, done our damnedest to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all we can practically help.

No one's claiming we're perfect, and certainly not me. I'm no huge fan of Bush. And even in the past 70 years this country has done some terrible things, both internationally and within its own borders and society. But we're a damn sight better than every other country that's ever wielded such power, and a helluva lot better than most who couldn't dream of it.

The USA are a great country... just like the Old Republic was a great thing. But right now USA are bordering dangerously close to become an Empire. With military tribunals being able to charge American citizens inland, laws allowing to imprison journalists protecting their sources, the privacy nonexistant and the "war on terror", the parallels to Episode III are striking.

You refuse to recognize America's triumphs, even those in your defense, and rejoice at America's failings, even those at your expense

No victory in Iraq is worth loosing civil liberties at home. The latter would devalue the whole concept of this war - which, notably, HAS TO BE WAGED, but not at such cost.

So no, I don't refuse to recognize what America won, I am just horrified at what it can loose, namely democracy and inland freedom.

You seek the withdrawal of the United States and its allies from Iraq, guaranteeing a bloodbath of the type seen when American leftists won our withdrawal from Viet Nam. But you don't care, so long as America's nose is bloodied

No way should USA go now! Withdrawing now would rectify anything. It would be like pulling a harpune out of the wound, doing even more damage than when it was thrust in.

"You are always responsible for those you tamed" applies here.

[PunkMaister]

Wow just wow! Just when I think I've seen enough leftard crap this comes along I was linked to this obviously long dead thread by someone who is interested in resurrecting this issue if one can even call it that. And considering we are talking about someone that considers soldiers who voluntarily go where called to to defend their nation's interest in the same level as the soulless bloodthirsty mass murderers that brought such wonders according to who brought me here vision of the world such as September 11th, the Bali bombings, the mass murdering of children in Beslan need I go on.? Truth be told I could care less about the opinion of Ilk like these.

My brother did 2 tours in Iraq in both the first gulf war ant the now to expire current intervention, you leftards want to think of him and all other US armed forces personnel as mass murderers no different than the scum that did the things I just commented a while back be my guest. I could also say the moon is made of cheese and believe with all my heart that it is just as you believe all this crap but it does not make it so still...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

[PunkMaister]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

I'd take his word over yours any day of the week, month or year!

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

I'd take his word over yours any day of the week, month or year!

Possibly, but he'll soon be like all these 'Nam vets.
History repeats itself, and BS wars keep filling the pockets of the same few people.

[PunkMaister]

Ah, emotion and ignorance.
Fantastic tools.

Fact is, your brother knows shit and he's not asked to give his opinion.
He's just a pawn, caught in a machine.

And this reaches beyond "leftards" and "rightards".

I'd take his word over yours any day of the week, month or year!

Possibly, but he'll soon be like all these 'Nam vets.
History repeats itself, and BS wars keep filling the pockets of the same few people.

No he won't he is basically and thankfully nearly retired now. The very fact that you compare the current conflict in general with Vietnam shows incredible shortsightedness. The situation is far more complex than you think. Is not even the old Commie vs Capitalist conflict of old. The so called war on terror is a misnomer as terror is a method, however barbaric that's all it is and as long as the US and the West and civilization in general fights the method and not the primary ideology behind it,we won't get anywhere...

Anyway you probably don't know what the primary ideology behind worldwide terrorism is or simply think is some kind of US conspiracy for what I've read from you so far....

[Jedi Master Spock]

When you two are yelling at each other, you aren't getting anything across to each other. I understand this is an emotionally intense topic, but we aren't going to get anywhere by appealing to emotions.

If I may?

Domestically, from the American point of view - soldiers or civilians - the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam are very different. The rhetoric was different, and there were draftees being sent. Vietnam was a strategic quagmire that lasted many years and involved a war with two clearly identified combatants (N. and S. Vietnam), at least at the start. To PunkMaister, the ideologies being talked about are different, and that is important.

From a global point of view, however, both look quite similar. American troops are sent in to a small country (25 million people or so), defense contractors and other corporate interests get rich, and lots of the natives of that country die as the US attempts to impose a political structure and control the smaller country against the will of its own populace. To Mr. Oragahn, all the talk about this or that ideology is just that - talk, with little relation to the real meanings or motives.

What will make the most difference in how historians from all schools view the current war in Iraq, and whether they call it the same or different from the Vietnam war, will depend on what happens next. But for now, historians judging the start of the war will have little trouble finding common ground between Bush's justifications for starting a war and the Tonkin Gulf resolution.