WATERTOWN, NY - "I was messed up in the head. It was okay for me. I laughed afterwards. We all did. It's just the way things go."

Iraq war veteran Jon Turner said it was almost expected of him to pull the trigger on people who didn't need to die. So he did.

"It was my decision," Turner said. "I made it. Now I have to live with the fact I see someone's eyes screaming at me after I shot them."

But Turner says it wasn't his choice to be encouraged to do it from higher ranking officers. He and three other veterans speaking out Saturday at the Different Drummer Cafe in Watertown said committing war crimes is not only the way things go, but it's unofficial policy.


"The killing of innocent civilians is policy," veteran Mike Blake said. "It's unit policy and it's Army policy. It's not official policy, but it's what's happens on the ground everyday. It's what unit commanders individually encourage."

The group, part of the national organization called Iraq Veterans Against War are planning an event to be held in Washington, D.C. this coming March called "Winter Soldier" that will have veterans all speaking about war crimes they committed or witnessed during their tours of duty.

"These decisions are coming from the top down," veteran Matt Howard said. "The tactics that we use. The policies that the military engages will create situations, create dynamics, create, ultimately, atrocity."

IVAW hopes to have 100 veterans speak at the event. Once it ends, they'll document the testimony and package it for Congress.

IVAW says it expects a number of veterans from Fort Drum to be at the event and it is hoping to get more veterans to attend and speak at the event and will help pay for any active duty soldier who wants to go and listen.

http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/?SecID=1&ArID=133639


I personally don't or won't blame the soldiers. They're paid to do what they're told. However, the decision makers should be held accountable.

no they should be held to account as well. Its written into law that you dont follow illegal orders, and NO ONE is exempt from that. At the nuremberg trials they decided that although following orders COULD be concidered as a defence it was by no means a garentie. Since then those laws have been tightened further such that it is not just comands responcability but the indervidual solder as well

Ganymede: "I personally don't or won't blame the soldiers. They're paid to do what they're told. However, the decision makers should be held accountable."

Trigger-pulling is the culmination of a chain of personal decisions. Most terrorists have orders.

rember we arnt talking about a pilot told "bomb this building" and it turns out to be a school. This is a person who looked the person in the eye, knew it was wrong and still pulled the trigger. Thats cold blooded murder

Yes, that is cold-blooded murder. Not that hot-blooded murder should be so easily absolved.

It is also murder to kill with impulsive abandon: Jon Turner poignantly described "someone's eyes screaming at me after I shot them". People dying in such outrage deserve at least as much of our empathy and consideration as do stressed-out, culture-shocked, and out-of-place young soldiers cum murderers.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

http://www.independentamerican.org/blog.php?blog=822

"hot blooded murder" is manslaughter just out of intrest:p

as jack (L&O:p) would say, someone needs to be held to account or the "young stressed solders"

If we are just going to ignore this we might as well throw the geneva convention out compleatly. The laws of war must be MORE respected than the laws of sociaty because those solders need to fear the law more than they do there unit comanders. This maybe harsh but its very nessary.

ABS: "The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear..."

No, it's an empty promise. Like our entry into wrongful wars, our cultural de-emphasis and discouragement of disobedience toward atrocious missions and orders is not confined to the military. Civil and military indoctrination over-ride our vaunted Constitutional and USMJ limits. The military culture reflects our pervasive and abnegated national callousness, our denial, and our moral aloofness with absolute fidelity. We are conspicuously failing to uphold personal and national accountability in the USA today.

Asguard: "The laws of war must be MORE respected than the laws of sociaty"

A society must be wholly committed to any laws including those of war, or they are worth less than nothing.

no they should be held to account as well. Its written into law that you dont follow illegal orders, and NO ONE is exempt from that. At the nuremberg trials they decided that although following orders COULD be concidered as a defence it was by no means a garentie. Since then those laws have been tightened further such that it is not just comands responcability but the indervidual solder as well

I agree 100% however, when your unit commander tells you to clear out a building, and leave no one alive, because it's filled with terrorists, you're in compliance with the current rules of engagement. It's not the soldiers fault that the building turned out to be ordinary civilians. These are split second decisions these soldiers are making, so it's paramount that they're given the proper instruction and intelligence, before they're sent out on a combat mission. They don't have the luxury to timely discern cilvilians from terrorists.

So that's why I say the decision makers should be held accountable. The official record states that Al Queda's numbers are around 12,500 in Iraq. We have over 100,000 troops in Iraq. So it's immoral to wronglfully inform the soldiers that they're fighting "Al-Queda", they're fighting the Iraqi's. That's why the insurgency has an infinite supplpy of replacments, no matter how many casualties we inflict. The soldiers have already completed thier mission, since then they've been relegated to policing a country in chaos. Something that they weren't trained to do. That's one of the many reasons why the decision makers should be held accountable.

Ganymede i agree, that if a group of solders walked in and started shooting because they had been told there were combatants in that is one thing (same as for the bombing) and an coronos investigation should be launched as to if it was a fuck up or delibratly missleading

I mean look at the movie rules of engagement (think thats the one i mean, where they the goverment hung the comander out to dry because they didnt want to admit that they were really shooting). Lets forget that he really DID shoot at the people who were shooting at him. If he had made a mestake as to the origion of the bullets that would have been tragic (The US army should still compensate though). If he had delbratly lied however he should be the one who takes the murder charges not his men

BUT

If a solder (like your example) walks up to someone they KNOW is a civilan, who is unarmed and at your mercy and pulls the trigger simply because his CO told him to that is a CLEAR violation of the law of war and that solder as well as his comander should be charged with murder

I would make one other point though, what is the acidental kill rate difference between SWAT and the Marines? SWAT manage to go through a building with both hostages and other Non Coms as well as Suspects and manage not to kill to many non coms

Ganymede: "when your unit commander tells you to clear out a building, and leave no one alive, because it's filled with terrorists, you're in compliance with the current rules of engagement. It's not the soldiers fault that the building turned out to be ordinary civilians."

Wrong. Everyone in the chain is accountable. Guards enabling the Nazi Holocaust, who faced instant death for any disobedience, were accountable for the atrocities they enabled. It's no excuse, especially as an invader, to kill all whom you encounter, and then some, because you are in personal danger.

USAmericans, or Muslim fanatics, or anyone attacking residential buildings and neighborhoods (for example) with indescriminate force will always kill innocent people as surely as any other indiscriminate act of violence. Murderers rush in where angels know better than to tread. Wholesale killing also has the less-moralistic but considerable strategic disadvantage of creating bitter enemies for generations.

When given an order that jeopardizes innocent life, our law says to refuse the order- But moral weakness, malignant in sick societies, says "fuck 'em - they're less human than We".

http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/?SecID=1&ArID=133639


I personally don't or won't blame the soldiers. They're paid to do what they're told. However, the decision makers should be held accountable.
Soldiers are obligated to follow lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones. An order to engage civilians is not lawful. If these guys are being accurate in their statements, they were really shitty soldiers.

http://news10now.com/content/top_stories/?SecID=1&ArID=133639


I personally don't or won't blame the soldiers. They're paid to do what they're told. However, the decision makers should be held accountable.

I'm wondering what unit this guy was from. If he was regular 4rth Infantry, Its no surprise. If he's from the marines. I'm gonna kill Thomas E Ricks

An order to engage civilians is not lawful? That assumes one can tell at a glance who is a "civilian" and who is a "terrorist".

Spidergoat as i said quite clearly
If they walked into a building and acidently shot the wrong people thats tragic
if they were delibratly feed bad intel the people who gave them the info should be held to account
If however these were unarmed and at there mercy they should be charged with murder wether they were combatants or not
You dont shoot prisioners and you dont shoot civilans

What if some shot came from that direction? Could someone just hide their gun quickly and avoid getting fired on?

what from a line of people cable tied?????

isnt that the SOP of the army to cable tie all non combatants and prisioners?

What if some shot came from that direction? Could someone just hide their gun quickly and avoid getting fired on?
Unless a shooter can positively ID a target as hostile, deadly force is not authorized.

In 20 years in the Military I never was or ever heard of some one encouraging the targeting of civilians.

In any case that appears to involve the targeting of civilians intentionally has been investigated and and if proven, those responsible brought up on charges, and tried, and convicted, killing in combat is one thing, murder is another.

Now why aren't the Terrorist being condemned with the same fervor for targeting and killing civilians, I can post a hundred cases were the Moslem terrorist have set off bombs in markets deliberately killing civilians.

Suicide Bomber Attacks Iraqi School
By CHRISTOPHER CHESTER,AP
Posted: 2008-01-22 16:56:44
BAGHDAD (AP) - A suicide bomber pushing an electric heater atop a cart packed with hidden explosives attacked a high school north of Baghdad on Tuesday, leaving students and teachers bloodied and bewildered as insurgents appeared to be expanding their list of targets.

The bombing - one of two attacks near Iraqi schools on the same day - follows a wave of recent blasts blamed on al-Qaida in Iraq against funerals and social gatherings.

I personally don't or won't blame the soldiers. They're paid to do what they're told. However, the decision makers should be held accountable.

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004.
Over 700 Members

Doesn't seem that this organization attracts many discharged servive people to its ranks.
Over 50,000 people have been discharged from the service since the start of this conflict, where are they now and why aren't they stepping forward to explress their own horror stories to back up these people?

I feel sorry for the people of Iraq and I am not at all surprised that it is policy in the US army to shoot civilians. It matches the unembedded reports and the high civilian casualties which they keep calling "insurgents" and "militants" and "terrorists".

Those who destroy the oldest city in the world by building a military base on it cannot be expected to behave otherwise.

Kudos to those brave members who are willing to come forward with the truth. It is only through people of conscience that the dead can expect justice.

I'm wondering what unit this guy was from. If he was regular 4rth Infantry, Its no surprise. If he's from the marines. I'm gonna kill Thomas E Ricks

If he was 4th Infantry, then I seriously doubt his claims. After watching the local outrage by members of 1st Cav and 4th Infantry over the fact that they even brought that shitbag England to the post for her trial, I can't believe that anyone from around here was involved in what has been mentioned.

So they found another nut who says these ridiculous things. I can find you a nut here in Toronto and write an emotional piece about his personal experience of "the government" implanting chips in peoples' hands. He gives out flyers daily at a busy downtown intersection. And he's got a few friends who also have had that experience. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

The rules against atrocities are going to do no good after the fact unless there is another war and commanders are well prepared to follow them next time. They obviously weren't prepared to follow them this time.

And this war is Gulf War I's next time, as GW1 was Viet Nam's next time. We're in something like a fourth generation war after WWII, which is plenty of time to develop ways to get American officers to obey the law.

Here is an older report which confirms these soldiers testimonies:

Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to “kill all military age males,” according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/

Here is an older report which confirms these soldiers testimonies:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13974639/
No it does not. Read it again.

So they found another nut who says these ridiculous things. I can find you a nut here in Toronto and write an emotional piece about his personal experience of "the government" implanting chips in peoples' hands. He gives out flyers daily at a busy downtown intersection. And he's got a few friends who also have had that experience. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!
The biggest thing that bothers me about stuff like this is the timing. These guys are stateside and discharged, no longer even subject to the UCMJ, yet a few months before a big IVAW rally they decide to blow the whistle? How convenient. If their experiences downrange were so outrageous, I'd rather they'd have had the moral fiber and courage to challenge their orders and take their testimony to the nearest JAG or CID officer and bring these crimes to light for the authorities. That way it wouldn't come off as a chickenshit publicity stunt at the expense of their fellow soldiers.

See also: Jesse Macbeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth)

No it does not. Read it again.


Whats unclear about this?

“The ROE (rule of engagement) was to kill all military age males on Objective Murray,” Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard told investigators, referring to the target by its code name.

That target, an island on a canal in the northern Salhuddin province, was believed to be an al-Qaida training camp. The soldiers said officers in their chain of command gave them the order and explained that special forces had tried before to target the island and had come under fire from insurgents.

Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are charged with murder and other offenses in the shooting deaths of three of the men during the May 9 raid.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

Here is another one:

Under a program developed by a Defense Department warfare unit, Army snipers have begun using a new method to kill Iraqis suspected of being insurgents, using fake weapons and bomb-making material as bait and then killing anyone who picks them up, according to testimony presented in a military court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/middleeast/25abuse.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

S.A.M. every one of your examples shows that some one reported the incident, that it is being investigated, and actions are being taken.

Now the one fact is that no one has produced a written policy that authorizes the indiscriminate killing of civilian.

When the incidents are reported they are investigated, that is from your own citation.

The one question that I have is that all of these people, (Jessy McBeth, Joshua Key, Jon Turner, Mike Blake) why do they wait till their are home to report these action? I tis abundantly clear that the military takes these report seriously, and if they are afraid to report to the military why didn't they go to the news, there seem to be nothingmore enjoyable to as news reporter as reporting the military screw ups.

Echo3Romeo: what does e3r actually MEAN?? its really been bugging me

Sorry for the off topic

Whats unclear about this?
It has nothing to do with the article in the first post of this thread, so I'm not sure why you think it "confirms" their testimonies.

Echo3Romeo: what does e3r actually MEAN?? its really been bugging me

Sorry for the off topic
It was my unit's call sign in Afghanistan last year and I needed a username. Presto!

It has nothing to do with the article in the first post of this thread, so I'm not sure why you think it "confirms" their testimonies.


In terms of civilian killing being US army policy.

ah, i wouldnt have regonized it before i started this degree but now im fluient in the phonetic alphabet:p

The biggest thing that bothers me about stuff like this is the timing. These guys are stateside and discharged, no longer even subject to the UCMJ, yet a few months before a big IVAW rally they decide to blow the whistle? How convenient. If their experiences downrange were so outrageous, I'd rather they'd have had the moral fiber and courage to challenge their orders and take their testimony to the nearest JAG or CID officer and bring these crimes to light for the authorities. That way it wouldn't come off as a chickenshit publicity stunt at the expense of their fellow soldiers.

See also: Jesse Macbeth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth)

The one question that I have is that all of these people, (Jessy McBeth, Joshua Key, Jon Turner, Mike Blake) why do they wait till their are home to report these action? I tis abundantly clear that the military takes these report seriously, and if they are afraid to report to the military why didn't they go to the news, there seem to be nothingmore enjoyable to as news reporter as reporting the military screw ups.

What bothers me more is that they actually carried out the order and then reported it. But then I realise, they are in the military and there is a certain meekness and compliance that is expected from soldiers when it comes to following orders. After all, would either of you have directly disobeyed an order from your superiors if it seemed they were ordering you to commit murder? Would either of you have risked being viewed as betraying your fellow soldiers in reporting them and your superiors?

The reason they may have waited until they were home and discharged is simply for fear of reprisals and action taken against them within the sphere of the defence force. Make it as public as possible and be on home soil where the laws of the US can grant them some protection from their former military superiors.

In terms of civilian killing being US army policy.

Only in your world, :roflmao:

S.A.M. you still haven't posted any corroborating evidence to support your allegation, just hearsay, from people who have not followed the proper procedure to bring these allegations to light.

They have not provided detailed, time, place, or date for when and where these supposed atrocities happened.

So again lets see some evidence that is supportable by fact, time, date, and location.

What bothers me more is that they actually carried out the order and then reported it. But then I realise, they are in the military and there is a certain meekness and compliance that is expected from soldiers when it comes to following orders. After all, would either of you have directly disobeyed an order from your superiors if it seemed they were ordering you to commit murder? Would either of you have risked being viewed as betraying your fellow soldiers in reporting them and your superiors?

The fact is that yes I would have reported any deliberate targeting of Civilians, in fact as a Platoon Sergeant I would have place any who did such under arrest, and turned them over to the proper authorities.

Honor, Duty, Country, not just words to me, they were and are my life.

Personally I think they pulled the trigger on their own, and now to salve their conscience they are blaming everybody else for their own personnel lack of Honor, and Devotion to Duty, and now slander their country for their own lack of such.



The reason they may have waited until they were home and discharged is simply for fear of reprisals and action taken against them within the sphere of the defence force. Make it as public as possible and be on home soil where the laws of the US can grant them some protection from their former military superiors.

What reprisals? The channels are open to report things like that.

Now why haven't they given Date, Time, Location, names, they have identified nothing as to facts about these alleged occurrences.

Why is anyone doubting that the IS deliberately kill civilians?

You defend the nuclear bombing of women and children yourself.

The fact is that yes I would have reported any deliberate targeting of Civilians, in fact as a Platoon Sergeant I would have place any who did such under arrest, and turned them over to the proper authorities.

Honor, Duty, Country, not just words to me, they were and are my life.

Personally I think they pulled the trigger on their own, and now to salve their conscience they are blaming everybody else for their own personnel lack of Honor, and Devotion to Duty, and now slander their country for their own lack of such.





What reprisals? The channels are open to report things like that.

Now why haven't they given Date, Time, Location, names, they have identified nothing as to facts about these alleged occurrences.

I wonder Buffalo, if they do indeed have proof of their claims, what then? What could be said of the military commanders who gave such orders? It could very well be they pulled the trigger on their own volition and then blamed their lack of human decency and integrity on their military superiors. Which then leads to the question of how in the hell such individuals made it into the military in the first place?

In terms of civilian killing being US army policy.
Whoa, do you really think some random shitbird sergeant ordering a couple of dudes in his fire team to murder their detainees is suddenly indicative of US Army policy? I must have missed the briefing on that field manual.

I wonder Buffalo, if they do indeed have proof of their claims, what then? What could be said of the military commanders who gave such orders? It could very well be they pulled the trigger on their own volition and then blamed their lack of human decency and integrity on their military superiors. Which then leads to the question of how in the hell such individuals made it into the military in the first place?
Eh, we're a microcosm of American society. We have our fair share of shitbags in uniform, just like everywhere else. They try to make the selection process as discriminating as possible but inevitably you wind up with some people slipping through the cracks who we'd be better off without. Then there's the whole aspect of a combat theater being so terribly corrosive to one's sense of humanity that it can bring out the choir boy's inner psychopath in a most terrifyingly unmitigated fashion. To be honest, these guys' allegations could be 100% accurate and it would disappoint me, but it wouldn't be a terribly huge surprise. You can look at any war in recorded human history and find discrete atrocities left and right, even if you overlook warfighting's inherently atrocious nature. That doesn't excuse anything, of course, but it does provide some useful context.

As far as the fear of reprisals goes, that doesn't impress me much. There are hundreds of young, wet behind the ears JAG lawyers and CID officers out there who would just love to bust an incident like this wide open for the sake of their own careers, never mind the fact that the JAG corps and CID have the reputation for raking "their own" over the coals like the internal affairs division of any large police department and get paid to do so. And like Buffalo said, the mainstream media would salivate over the chance to report on an incident like this. All it would take is a willingness to help the prosecutors and testify to what they saw, and POOF, these guys get more protection than Kid Rock on a USO tour.

Meekness and blind compliance are not the hallmarks of a good soldier, at least not in the volunteer military of any modern westernized nation. Things like the Constitution, the oath of enlistment, and the laws of land warfare transcend direct orders from the chain of command and cannot be countermanded by the President himself. Battlefield ethics get pounded into your head throughout your training, especially during workups for a deployment overseas. If a soldier decides to go astray, it is his or her own failing.

Were you sleeping through the part where the President lied to get into a pointless war?

And the minor details of indefinite detentions in offshore prisons without trial or charge?

Were you sleeping through the part where the President lied to get into a pointless war?

And the minor details of indefinite detentions in offshore prisons without trial or charge?

The war is anything but pointless.

I wonder Buffalo, if they do indeed have proof of their claims, what then? What could be said of the military commanders who gave such orders? It could very well be they pulled the trigger on their own volition and then blamed their lack of human decency and integrity on their military superiors. Which then leads to the question of how in the hell such individuals made it into the military in the first place?


If they have proof of their claim they should have given it to some one by now, why haven't they?

20 years in the military and I have never seen a policy that authorizes the indiscriminate killing of civilians, I have never been given a order to kill every one in a combat zone, and I never would have carried out such a order, and I would have arrested any of my men who would have ever committed such a act.

As Echo 3 Romeo said, there are shit bags who slip through the crack, and they are just as dangerous to their own troops as they are to the enemy, a dirt bag that will kill civilians with out reason, will kill his own with out reason,
and you need to have absolute confidence if any one in your unit that they are operating as a reasonable person inside their duty and with Personnel Honor.

In my time in so far, I've run into a few future pfc Englands, but then again I've also run into a bunch of hippies as well. I'm glad that both sets of individuals are a small minority, but I wish that more action would be taken against the former to make sure they don't get their time in the news as they get led into a courtroom.

Why is anyone doubting that the IS deliberately kill civilians?

You defend the nuclear bombing of women and children yourself.

You justify the killing of innocent women and children by Islam, as interpreted by you and your Jihadi terrorist friends, and their actions are in the furtherence of the spread of Islam and the establishment of the Ummah, the spread of war to conqure the world for Islam.

I defend a action that ended a war, a war that was still taking lives at a rate of 150,000 people a week, a action against a enemy that was still in the field, in a declared war.

The earliest date that I have seen for a collapse of Japan was November, 1945, that is 10 weeks, even with out a invasion that is 1,500,000 more dead, and that is assuming that Japan would have surrendered in November, we had though that they should have surrendered already, and they hadn't.

So prove that the Bombing weren't needed, prove that more lives would have been saved, when you can do that then you have proven that the Bombing weren't necessary.

Buffilo you do realise that the Japanise were willing to surender if the emporor could keep his place in there sociaty dont you?

McArtha refused to accept that because he was focused on the USSR not on ending WW2. He didnt WANT them to surender because that way he could show US power to the commies

You justify the killing of innocent women and children by Islam, as interpreted by you and your Jihadi terrorist friends, and their actions are in the furtherence of the spread of Islam and the establishment of the Ummah, the spread of war to conqure the world for Islam.

I defend a action that ended a war, a war that was still taking lives at a rate of 150,000 people a week, a action against a enemy that was still in the field, in a declared war.

The earliest date that I have seen for a collapse of Japan was November, 1945, that is 10 weeks, even with out a invasion that is 1,500,000 more dead, and that is assuming that Japan would have surrendered in November, we had though that they should have surrendered already, and they hadn't.

So prove that the Bombing weren't needed, prove that more lives would have been saved, when you can do that then you have proven that the Bombing weren't necessary.


Aside from the fact that a blockade would have done the job just fine, Togo was in dealings to end the Japanese war.

Apparently it is "justified" to kill a few hundred thousand civilians rather than use any other measure.

Aside from the fact that a blockade would have done the job just fine, Togo was in dealings to end the Japanese war.

Apparently it is "justified" to kill a few hundred thousand civilians rather than use any other measure.

Again prove that, any lives would have been saved by your proposed solutions.

Exactly what dealing did Togo address to the Allies? He approached the Russians which at that time were not part of the Pacific war, and they forwarded none of the Offers, and as a aside the Japanese Ambassador to Russia recognized that there were no earnest efforts to end the war.

Again, killing a few hundred thousand civilians is better than any other solution.

It's reached 1.6 million in 5 years now.. thats a rate of 300 000 people a year. Although the deaths are polarized. It's not a number you see in the media. Vietnam was about 2.2 million over 15 years, and that was a concentrated invasion/occupation/civil war.

Sam: "killing a few hundred thousand civilians is better than any other solution."

Let's not any one of us be confused about the actual problem that the nuclear attacks on Japan were intended to be a solution to. More than enough time has passed, and more than enough information has come to light, for anyone of sincere intent to separate fact from fiction.

The problem was not one of compelling Japan to stop the war: Every rational person in Japan in 1945 (and yes, most Japanese were rational) could perceive that their empire was defeated, before the Hiroshima attack.

The problem was not finding a new method of horrifying the Japanese into their inevitable surrender: We had the demonstrated means for incinerating Japanese cities in "conventional" firestorms equally as horrific as nuclear attack.

The problem for the Truman Administration was the containment of the Soviet Union. The most direct (if callous) solution, as the Truman Cabinet assessed the situaton, was suddenly at hand, thanks to the scientific triumph of the Manhattan Project- but the opportunity for what was to be demonstrated was fast expiring.

The war-crisis mentality of the USAmerican public was no more sustainable than the Japanese Empire. Keenly aware as world leaders had become of the power of crisis and fear, US leadership was keenly aware that not only Imperial Japan, but also the unprecedented war effort that they had been managing themselves was coming to an inevitable end.

But there remained a looming strategic objective. The nuclear attacks on Japan were the last fleeting opportunity for US leadership to not only demonstrate the weapons to the Soviets, but also (and infinitely more importantly) to demonstrate US willingness to use them.

Get Back, Joe.

Clearly, intimidating the Soviets by nuking Japanese civilians was not a policy that would have been saleable, if coldly spelled out to the general USAmerican public, or to the world at large. But in the judgement of US leadership at the time, it was one final imperative mission, in the waning days of an era of so many bloody and imperative missions; just one more bloody push for the Cause. Pangs of rationality and conscience could be repressed by repeating and repeating and repeating the official lie about one nuclear hope to avert a bloody US invasion of Japan.

Truman's cabinet had more than sufficent intelligence to fully understand how and why Imperial Japan was broken before the nuclear attacks. They also knew more than most USAmericans at the time, who still feared Japan, and still feared further casualties in a bitter invasion of Japan. That fear was exploited, for a separate policy than what was publicly told.

There are of course lessons in this, but they do require some willingness to study, and willingess to challenge our most comforting assumptions.

The US public was not prepared in 1945 to support the intimidation of the Kremlin, and the intimidation of any challengers to USAmerica's unique new power through the sacrifice of two Japanese cities. So we were lied to, to spare us the moral dilemma for some time. Truman's cabinet had a Project for a New Amercan Century, and just like their imitators who came later, the public could not be entrusted with the truth. But USAmericans, like most people, really (really) hate being lied to. Sometimes we respond to being lied to with indignity, and sometimes we choose to respond with denial- it all depends on our willingness to admit being deceived.

There is ample, widely-accessible and verifiable evidence today, showing not only that Japan was a broken and defeated empire, but also that Japanese leadership was visibly involved in the internal process of making terms for surrender. That process of surrender was not simple, was not instantaneous, but it was already irreversible before the fateful nuclear tests of both availabe nuclear devices at the pristine Hiroshima and Nagasaki targets.

Such evidence is extremely difficult to confront, for those who desperately maintain an idealistic belief that the United States has never been corrupted into war crime. Buffalo Roam, you obviously have a tremendous personal investment in, and a personal identification with the myth of USAmerican purity of arms. If you really want to hold on to that illusion, then you simply cannot honestly discuss history. The two are incompatible.

Buffilo you do realise that the Japanise were willing to surender if the emporor could keep his place in there sociaty dont you?

McArtha refused to accept that because he was focused on the USSR not on ending WW2. He didnt WANT them to surender because that way he could show US power to the commies

Asguard, that is clearly not the case. The Japaneese wanted to negotiate a settlement with the United States. But history has taught us that there is no real negotation with tyrants. You let them go today, they will be at your doorstep tommorow. In WWII we were determined not to repeat the mistakes of WWI. Where we defeated an enemy and left them devestated. We were not going to do the same to Japan or Germany for that matter. Hence the Marshall plan to reconstruct Germany and Japan.

In order to do that the Japaneese had to surrender unconditionally, not with conditions as the Japaneese wanted. I think it was the right decision.

The Japaneese could have limited the loss of life by one not invading other countries, two by surrendering when it was clear that they could not win. It is unfair to blame the United States for this. There are many things you can rightly blame the United States for, but this is not one of them.

But history has taught us that there is no real negotation with tyrants.

What history? The US supports dictators and oppressive regimes all the time

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

joepistole: "It is unfair to blame the United States for this."

Bullshit. There was no imminent threat justifying our mushroom clouds. The USA was fully in charge of the endgame without nuking cities. Until we learn from our history, we'll go on falling for the same lies, and go on undermining the legitimacy of our society.

joepistole: "It is unfair to blame the United States for this."

Bullshit. There was no imminent threat justifying our mushroom clouds. The USA was fully in charge of the endgame without nuking cities. Until we learn from our history, we'll go on falling for the same lies, and go on undermining the legitimacy of our society.

No the Bull Shit is on your end.

Now prove that less lives would have been lost by waiting, and not using the bomb.

Show any contact by the Japanese with the Allies offering to surrender,

Show the date certain that Japan would have surrendered.


Nuclear Files: Library: Correspondence: Telegrams: Togo-Sato
Between: Naotaki Sato, Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Togo ..... of the war but should also endeavor to induce them to mediate in good faith. ...
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm

The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Togo) to the
Japanese Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Sato)


[Translation]

[Tokyo,] July 12, 1945 --8:50 p.m.

Secret
Urgent

893. Re telegram 891 and others.

Not having seen the telegram regarding the meeting with Molotov, I feel as though I am sending troops out without sufficient reconnaissance. Much as I dislike doing so, I find that I must proceed at this time and would like to have you convey to the Soviet side before the Three-Power Conference begins the matter concerning the Imperial wishes for the termination of the war. The substance of the following should be borne in mind as appropriate in your direct explanation to Molotov:

"His Majesty the Emperor is greatly concerned over the daily increasing calamities and sacrifices faced by the citizens of the various belligerent countries in this present war, and it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war. In the Great East Asia War, however, as long as American and England insist on unconditional surrender, our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival and the honor of the homeland. The resulting enormous bloodshed of the citizens of the belligerent powers would indeed be contrary to His Majesty's desires, and so it is His Majesty's earnest hope that peace may be restored as speedily as possible for the welfare of mankind.

"The above Imperial wishes are rooted not only in his Majesty's benevolence toward his subjects but in his sincere desire for the happiness of mankind, and he intends to dispatch Prince Fumimaro Konoye as special envoy to the Soviet Union, bearing his personal letter. You are directed therefore, to convey this to Molotov, and promptly obtain from the Soviet Government admission into that country for special envoy and his suite (The list of members of the special envoy's suite will be cabled later.) Furthermore, though it is not possible for the special envoy to reach Moscow before the Russian authorities leave there for the Three-Power Conference, arrangements must be made so that the special envoy may meet them as soon as they return to Moscow. It is desired, therefore, that the special envoy and his suite make the trip by plane. You will request the Soviet Government to send an airplane for them as far as Manchouli or Tsitsibar."

In other words, it is better to BOMB CIVILIANS rather than try any other method. Even if it is hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS

In other words, it is better to BOMB CIVILIANS rather than try any other method. Even if it is hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS

S.A.M. prove that less civilians would have died by not using the bomb, show a date certain that Japan would have surrendered, and that there would have been less civilian casualties, and less casualties all around.

When you can show your alternative action, would have resulted in less casualties, than you will be correct is your point, so provide proof that less people would have died by not using the bomb.

I have accessed the communications between Ambassador Sato and Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo.

It contains all of the communications between the two, and there was no effort to contact the U.S. and Great Britain to surrender, the terms were Unconditional Surrender, but Japan didn't even contact the Allies about negotiated surrender, all they did was try to use the Soviets as a go between, and the Soviets refused, so if Japan really wanted to end the war, the next step was to contact the Allies directly anS.A.M. prove that less civilians would have died by not using the bomb, show a date certain that Japan would have surrendered, and that there would have been less civilian casualties, and less casualties all around.

When you can show your alternative action, would have resulted in less casualties, than you will be correct is your point, so provide proof that less people would have died by not using the bomb.

I have accessed the communications between Ambassador Sato and Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Togo.

It contains all of the communications between the two, and there was no effort to contact the U.S. and Great Britain to surrender, the terms were Unconditional Surrender, but Japan didn't even contact the Allies about negotiated surrender, all they did was try to use the Soviets as a go between, and the Soviets refused, so if Japan really wanted to end the war, the next step was to contact the Allies directly and their were channels open for that.

S.A.M. prove that less civilians would have died by not using the bomb, show a date certain that Japan would have surrendered, and that there would have been less civilian casualties, and less casualties all around.

So your mindset is to completely obliterate people who do not surrender to you?

Buffalo Roam: "Now prove that less lives would have been lost by waiting, and not using the bomb."

That's common sense, for anyone in possession of a bomb. One doesn't rule out the other. Do you have a bomb, BR? Wait! Hold that bomb, I mean thought. Here, I can loan you some common sense: Bombs have a tendency to kill when they detonate.

"prove that less civilians would have died by not using the bomb, show a date certain that Japan would have surrendered..."

Certainly Japan was going to surrender by the end of 1945. Their empire had collapsed. They were in the same predicament the USA will be in, when multiple stupid gambits like Iraq result in unsustainable over-reach, foreign resentment, opposition, and isolation.

"[show a date certain that] there would have been less civilian casualties, and less casualties all around."

August 6 and 9, 1945- The only nuclear attacks in history. USA! USA! USA!

Buffalo Roam: "Now prove that less lives would have been lost by waiting, and not using the bomb."

That's common sense, for anyone in possession of a bomb. One doesn't rule out the other. Do you have a bomb, BR? Wait! Hold that bomb, I mean thought. Here, I can loan you some common sense: Bombs have a tendency to kill when they detonate.

"prove that less civilians would have died by not using the bomb, show a date certain that Japan would have surrendered..."

Certainly Japan was going to surrender by the end of 1945. Their empire had collapsed. They were in the same predicament the USA will be in, when multiple stupid gambits like Iraq result in unsustainable over-reach, foreign resentment, opposition, and isolation.

"[show a date certain that] there would have been less civilian casualties, and less casualties all around."

August 6 and 9, 1945- The only nuclear attacks in history. USA! USA! USA!

You still haven't proven that your dream would have saved more lives, you just go of on a rant.

Now, provide proof that if the Bombs weren't used that the casualties would have been lower if the war had been allowed to drag on till the Japanese surrendered on their own.

That is the only way your pipe dream can be valid, if not using the bombs saved more lives, so now please produce evidence that not using the bomb would have saved more lives.

Buffalo Roam: "Now, provide proof that if the Bombs weren't used that the casualties would have been lower if the war had been allowed to drag on till the Japanese surrendered on their own."

Japan was in no position to drag the war on; it was a broken empire by late 1945. Consider what Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Herbert Hoover, William Leahy, Albert Einstein, and other informed Americans had to say on the subject (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm). From that same source, Doug Long's review is informative (http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm).

"That is the only way your pipe dream can be valid, if not using the bombs saved more lives, so now please produce evidence that not using the bomb would have saved more lives."

That the nuclear attacks took lives is a given. That the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were military necessities is an assumption that has become increasingly strained with time, and with the availability of more information. You really have the ethical burden of proof backwards. As a nation claiming a dedication to high moral principle, we owed it not only to the people of Japan, but also to ourselves to give a less violent finale a better chance than we did. What was the rush? What were the imminent threats in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If you wish to collaboratively explore your questions and mine on this subject further, then let's do so in a more appropriate thread such as one of the following:

Pearl Harbor Day, WWII memorial stir sad, grim memories (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74831)
Dresden , Hiroshima and Ngasaki dire warnings to Soviet Russia (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35803)
Hiroshima & Nagasaki - Aug. 6th. & 9th. 1945 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47748)

If you're prepared to take this topic up with greater intellectual discipline, I'm willing to engage you in a Formal Debate (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=101).

That is the only way your pipe dream can be valid, if not using the bombs saved more lives, so now please produce evidence that not using the bomb would have saved more lives. If the threat of the bomb had forced surrender weeks - or even months - before it was dropped, many lives ( including American lives ) - would have been saved.

If the gun bomb had been dropped on a purely military target - or even an uninhabited demonstration target - and the threat brought surrender, many lives would have been saved.

If the wait after Hiroshima had been longer, and the Japanese had time to come to surrender after comprehending the threat they faced before Nagasaki, many lives would have been saved.

Once the bomb was developed, almost any strategy other than the one followed could possibly have saved more lives, on both sides. The strategy followed guaranteed the maximum number of people killed, given the bomb's existence.

Even overlooking the fact that the people chosen to kill included tens of thousands of children.

Some questions for you to ponder: Why did the US keep the bomb a secret until they had dropped it on a city? And why did the US drop another one on another city so quickly ?

*shoots buffilo in the head* prove that if i didnt shoot you, you would have lived longer than that

This is what your asking Buffalo Roam apart from telling you that the japanise were trying to survender no one can "prove" that no one would have died. I can bloody tell you that my grandfather wouldnt have died of cancer caused by radiation though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was in the ocupying forcers after the war and no he didnt need to die

Closer to topic (ja ve alvays adhier to DAS TOPIK!) let's get down to what we're really confronting here:

We're confronting a tenacious human compulsion to cling to dear myths about our righteousness. Although it was shattered before most of the eyes of the world long ago, you so obviously still cherish it BR, just like dwindling millions who haven't realized that broken myths, once outnumbered by truer perspectives become a heavier, and heavier liability to the point of dragging us all down.

We stumbled into Iraq because the USAmerican collective is still operating under the very same illusion about our past, generating dangerous distortions about how we perceive ourselves being perceived by others- Afraid of seeing ourselves as others see us. We've demonstrated again, like we've demonstrated before, that when perception and reality get too far out of whack, it's impossible to predict the exact moment, but

WHACK! Awakenings can be so rude and crude. But let's be gentle with the inwardly inexperienced, because some people do go through all sorts of things but never learn to deal. Buffalo Roam, I so appreciate your participation here, because you are so brilliantly representative of the millions of devotees to a blind and superficial nationalism in the USA. Just like we are an example not to follow in hubris for other nations on the rise. I hope you stick around for your own, and our nation's exorcism from these evil myths. Please try and understand, nobody is attacking you. We are attacking the demons that subvert your reasoning about who we are, and what we're becoming in the USA. Do facts burn and spatter, like holy Water-you-thinking?

Don't run and hide. You say you know war, but you don't feel it. Like a boy walking to school on a clear Monday morning, 8:14am in Hiroshima 63 years back. How do you imagine his day went after he looked up and wondered about two silver B-29s glittering unescorted, dragging care-free contrails over his city? Look up into that blue sky and face the entire ridiculous spectacle with him- Face what happened, but didn't have to. Look: Parachutes... what messengers do they bring from America? Wonder with that boy, if you want to understand. Spend some real time: Follow him through the rest of his life- it doesn't take long. If we could name the bomb that killed him Little Boy, why can't we think vividly about the real, flesh-and-blood little boys and girls incinerated, seared, and horribly wounded by the thousands?

It's like all the death and hate piling up in Iraq that didn't have to happen- we try not to think about what we started, making our superior choices. We smugly pull the levers, smugly pretending we've done and can do no wrong in such seemingly distant matters as the snuffing-out and wrecking of thousands upon thousands of individual lives that threatened us not. We smugly pretend we have orders to follow, and followers to order, even to their forgettable dying agonies. We smugly don't empathize with the people on the brutal receiving end of our "democracy-building", because we smugly fool ourselves into thinking we don't have to.

But we do. In a searing flash, or through the long nights in our blackened city, until we stare out through the dead eyes of so many others, and through the eyes of their survivors, we'll never understand why America can't justify it that we're mean.

Try and care, at least for as long as it took Enola Gay to escape the blast. There's a larger aftershock still catching up to us all. Brace yourself: Caring about this means everything to the future as our majestic and vulnerable country goes sailing blissfully toward our destiny.

hyper why the hell do you keep posting and then deleting and then reposting the same thing all the time?????????

I sometimes dislike software talking in my posts, while I'm off multitasking and proofing. Actually, I find proofreads and further thoughts happen best after pauses of 5 minutes and 1 second.

Last edited by hypewaders : Yesterday, 12:00 AM

Especially when I skip letters on trickier keyboards. I find it annoying to come back to punch in a skipped letter, and suffer the penalty of an edit stamp.

Last edited by hypewaders : Yesterday, 12:05 AM

Sometimes I return within minutes with a thought to add, and before anyone else has posted further in the thread. I do think it's rude to edit after someone has responded, unless it's a really necessary correction.

Last edited by hypewaders : 12-31-16 at 11:59 PM.

I've often thought it's too bad edit stamps (which are a good thing) aren't only enabled first by timer, but first when someone else posts. It would seem clearner to me, but it's only a minor aesthetic thing.

*shoots buffilo in the head* prove that if i didnt shoot you, you would have lived longer than that

This is what your asking Buffalo Roam apart from telling you that the japanise were trying to survender no one can "prove" that no one would have died. I can bloody tell you that my grandfather wouldnt have died of cancer caused by radiation though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He was in the ocupying forcers after the war and no he didnt need to die


Asguard, what would shooting me accomplish, you still haven't provided proof that less civilians would have died, you haven't proven that less military would have died.

When did your Pater die? if it was like my two friends Uncles it was 30-40 years after WWII, they died from cancer, and they were stationed in Nagasaki. But they each died of different cancers, they both smoked, did your Pater, they both worked jobs in industry. The Government gave them status as Atomic Veterans, and provided treatment for them when they fell ill, but the cancers they had also appeared in people who had never been exposed.

One died of lung cancer, and the other died of leukemia, both can be caused by radiation, and both can be caused by other factors.

But it still comes down to proving which path saved the most lives.

And guess what it can't be done, what can be proven is that the war was ended, the mass dying stopped, and in the end peace was restored, I don't know if your way could have worked, and you can't prove it, and the Japanese never contacted the Allies directly to offer terms of surrender, that is provable, and it is also provable that the Allies were not going to change the terms of surrender.

I have shown documentation from the communications of the Japanese themselves that they were going to fight until the bitter end, and the only thing that changed that was when that parodying shift in the cost of the war to them, in 9 days they surrendered, the best guess for the earliest date of surrender of Japan was given at November 1945, and that was a guess.

10 more weeks of dying, that was avoided in August in 9 days, the 6 through the 15, the killing was brought to a end.

No the dying didn't stop, because that is the cycle of life, no one gets out of this world alive, we all will die some time.

Buffalo Roam: "But it still comes down to proving which path saved the most lives."

Which is just like disproving 9-11 as a necessary pre-emptive defense for Bin Laden's constituency. It's a wasted effort in hypotheticals, and a Machiavellian dead-end, because terrorist methods pollute any cause that takes up such morally-indefensible tactics.

Buffalo Roam: "But it still comes down to proving which path saved the most lives."

Which is just like disproving 9-11 as a necessary pre-emptive defense for Bin Laden's constituency. It's a wasted effort in hypotheticals, and a Machiavellian dead-end, because terrorist methods pollute any cause that takes up such morally-indefensible tactics.


History is history, so prove your view, of might have been history, valid.

You still haven't proven any point in you alternative history as valid.

History is history, so prove your view, of might have been history, valid. Of all the reasonable strategies available once the bomb was proven workable, the one followed featured the maximum guaranteed loss of life, both American and Japanese, and the maximum guaranteed extension of the war.

Tens of thousands of those lives belonging to children, btw - no other reasonable strategy guaranteed so many dead children.

It is certainly common practice that civilian casualties are going to have an occurance at one point or another during the process and stages of war. This is not a civil war by any means, and as being part of the coalition forces, I know exactly what it's like over in Iraq from personal experience from being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Casualties are going to happen because the Haji & IIM continue to open-fire in civilised and public places. We do all that is necessary to avoid any civilian fatalities; however that is wishful thinking - sometimes it can be easily avoided, other times, it all goes back to carnality and you just don't have the time to sit back and fully rationalise before making a life or death decision.

Those who go around proclaiming "Soldiers are nothing but vile & vicious murdering, killing machines" are nothing but tossers in my opinion; because they have never had to pick up their rifle and eliminate life when duty called in order to defend yourself, and your country. What many forget is that Soldiers are given orders from a Hierarchy; and this Hierarchy stretches a fair distance all the way up to the Commander & Chief, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, etc. Even those higher up within the Ranks of the Military are FORCED to give an order. The decision may not be their own; and thus, all they are doing is what they have been paid and trained to do.

George Bush did what any decent Soldier would have done - he retaliated. It all comes back to carnality. George Bush is only human and makes mistakes just as we all do; you cannot judge by one man's mistakes even when you yourself are just as guilty - it ultimately makes you a hypocrite. What Bush fails to do, is learn from those mistakes. He has yet to develope that trait yet and until he does, more mistakes will be made, more civilian casualties will occur and more fighting will continue. You're right, those higher up should be held accountable, but until you've looked down the barrel of a rifle pointed directly at you - you have no place to judge what it's like to give an order, or make a life or death decision.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK AT THE POSTER.

It is certainly common practice that civilian casualties are going to have an occurance at one point or another during the process and stages of war. This is not a civil war by any means, and as being part of the coalition forces, I know exactly what it's like over in Iraq from personal experience from being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Casualties are going to happen because the Haji & IIM continue to open-fire in civilised and public places. We do all that is necessary to avoid any civilian fatalities; however that is wishful thinking - sometimes it can be easily avoided, other times, it all goes back to carnality and you just don't have the time to sit back and fully rationalise before making a life or death decision.

Those who go around proclaiming "Soldiers are nothing but vile & vicious murdering, killing machines" are nothing but tossers in my opinion; because they have never had to pick up their rifle and eliminate life when duty called in order to defend yourself, and your country. What many forget is that Soldiers are given orders from a Hierarchy; and this Hierarchy stretches a fair distance all the way up to the Commander & Chief, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, etc. Even those higher up within the Ranks of the Military are FORCED to give an order. The decision may not be their own; and thus, all they are doing is what they have been paid and trained to do.

George Bush did what any decent Soldier would have done - he retaliated. It all comes back to carnality. George Bush is only human and makes mistakes just as we all do; you cannot judge by one man's mistakes even when you yourself are just as guilty - it ultimately makes you a hypocrite. What Bush fails to do, is learn from those mistakes. He has yet to develope that trait yet and until he does, more mistakes will be made, more civilian casualties will occur and more fighting will continue. You're right, those higher up should be held accountable, but until you've looked down the barrel of a rifle pointed directly at you - you have no place to judge what it's like to give an order, or make a life or death decision.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK AT THE POSTER.

please do not insult american soldiers by comparing bush to them

please do not insult american soldiers by comparing bush to them

Insult? You need to back-down from your high-horse, mate. George Bush is human, so is a Soldier. Get over it. Are you also aware that I serve in the Defence Force?

Godslave: "It is certainly common practice that civilian casualties are going to have an occurance at one point or another during the process and stages of war."

"Common practice" has consequences. In Iraq, we are less and less welcome as overlords with every "common practice" resulting in a collateral Iraqi death or shattered life.

"This is not a civil war by any means"

Of course it is: Iraq is torn by sectarian violence between rival militias, and the Maliki government is not in control of the country.

"I know exactly what it's like over in Iraq from personal experience from being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan."

Personal experience as an occupier is very different from that of the occupied, whose experiences carry more weight- it's their country, not yours.

"Casualties are going to happen because the Haji & IIM continue to open-fire in civilised and public places."

There have also been many incidents where occupation fire has been undisciplined. Because we are the outsiders, we will always be forgiven less.

"We do all that is necessary to avoid any civilian fatalities; however that is wishful thinking - sometimes it can be easily avoided, other times, it all goes back to carnality and you just don't have the time to sit back and fully rationalise before making a life or death decision."

That's especially true in cases of wrongful intervention and that's why the ROEs are so complicated in Iraq. The pressure rises above questions of whether US soldiers should be expected to react as armed and imperiled people naturally do. The pivotal question is why are we there- With the reasons for that so unclear as they are, the moral and political latitude for Americans taking and breaking Iraqi lives is much diminished.

"Those who go around proclaiming "Soldiers are nothing but vile & vicious murdering, killing machines" are nothing but tossers in my opinion"

Nobody has been saying that around here.

"they have never had to pick up their rifle and eliminate life when duty called in order to defend yourself, and your country."

Killing for one's country confers no special wisdom or clarity.

"What many forget is that Soldiers are given orders from a Hierarchy; and this Hierarchy stretches a fair distance all the way up to the Commander & Chief, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, etc."

We are all responsible for our actions. There is a double standard presently being advanced by the Bush Administration, pretending that occupation forces are immune from the international law we have ourselves apply to our enemies. This hypocrisy severely undermines the legitimacy of our mandate.

"Even those higher up within the Ranks of the Military are FORCED to give an order. The decision may not be their own; and thus, all they are doing is what they have been paid and trained to do."

No, throughout the chain of command from top to bottom, there is at every link the personal responsibility to refuse any unlawful order. There remins a moral obligation and legal exception for personal conscience. Elective, oppressive, and unpopular wars not involving the nation's clear defense present a multiplicity of challenges of legality and conscience much more frequently than is the case of wars fought against foreign military aggression. If we are a nation that respects human rights, then our bias should be toward defending them in all orders being followed.

"George Bush did what any decent Soldier would have done - he retaliated."

Decent soldiers, and decent Americans do not jump to wrong conclusions, about whom to retaliate against. If we behave as rogues, we'll be treated that way.

"It all comes back to carnality."

No. It all comes back to justice. When we descend into carnality, we forfeit every high principle we may claim, and even our humanity.

"George Bush is only human and makes mistakes just as we all do; you cannot judge by one man's mistakes even when you yourself are just as guilty."

Osama Bin Laden is human; makes mistakes too; claims to follow orders. Would you exonerate him for that?

I can agree with the following:

"What Bush fails to do, is learn from those mistakes. He has yet to develope that trait yet and until he does, more mistakes will be made, more civilian casualties will occur and more fighting will continue... those higher up should be held accountable"

But here we part ways again:

"...until you've looked down the barrel of a rifle pointed directly at you - you have no place to judge what it's like to give an order, or make a life or death decision."

Bullshit. I've experienced all of that, but the experience confers no unique moral status. We don't get to decide on our codes to live by in the heat of battle, because such revision would amount to no code at all. Soldiers are accountable to countrymen who have not been in combat. War doesn't elevate soldiers into higher moral beings, superior in understanding to those who have not witnessed the horror of organized killing. Sometimes the very opposite is the case, and a soldier's sense of morality and humanity is shattered. Sometimes we find in the aftermath that wrong decisions are made under pressure- sometimes criminally, sometimes not. But we ultimately have to live with what we do as individuals and as a nation.

If what we do involves a disregard for human rights, there are personal and national consequences. There's no free pass for moral accountability when we put on a uniform. We must hold ouselves to an equal standard in international law as we would hold our enemies accountable to. As it was expressed at the Nuremberg Trials, individuals are responsible for their actions, and "just following orders" is not a valid exemption.

"George Bush is human, so is a Soldier."

And both are subect to conscience and the law.

'Get over it. Are you also aware that I serve in the Defence Force?"

You seem to be suffering under grand illusions about the personal glories of military service. By becoming a soldier, and by experriencing combat, we do not become higher beings. Soldiers deserve the logistical and moral support, and the gratitude of the nation for honorable service. But in a free society, there is no special nobility, and no moral exemptions for those who serve in the armed forces. Liberty can never be defended or promoted by stormtroopers.

We're past medieval times- American forces can't pretend to be a Holy Knights on Crusade, operating under devine ethical exemption for attacking the infidels. We're not a theocracy, and we won't be well-received, or effective in reducing foreign religious fanaticism behaving as such. Military life in service of a democratically-principled society just can't be depicted realistically as in heroic movies about martial glories past and imaginary. If we in the United States wish to take pride in a society morally advanced to those of the most belligerent and militarist countries of history, then we must always repudiate the mindless worship of militarism. We're Americans, not Klingons.

It is certainly common practice that civilian casualties are going to have an occurance at one point or another during the process and stages of war. This is not a civil war by any means, and as being part of the coalition forces, I know exactly what it's like over in Iraq from personal experience from being deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Casualties are going to happen because the Haji & IIM continue to open-fire in civilised and public places. We do all that is necessary to avoid any civilian fatalities; however that is wishful thinking - sometimes it can be easily avoided, other times, it all goes back to carnality and you just don't have the time to sit back and fully rationalise before making a life or death decision.

Those who go around proclaiming "Soldiers are nothing but vile & vicious murdering, killing machines" are nothing but tossers in my opinion; because they have never had to pick up their rifle and eliminate life when duty called in order to defend yourself, and your country. What many forget is that Soldiers are given orders from a Hierarchy; and this Hierarchy stretches a fair distance all the way up to the Commander & Chief, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, etc. Even those higher up within the Ranks of the Military are FORCED to give an order. The decision may not be their own; and thus, all they are doing is what they have been paid and trained to do.

George Bush did what any decent Soldier would have done - he retaliated. It all comes back to carnality. George Bush is only human and makes mistakes just as we all do; you cannot judge by one man's mistakes even when you yourself are just as guilty - it ultimately makes you a hypocrite. What Bush fails to do, is learn from those mistakes. He has yet to develope that trait yet and until he does, more mistakes will be made, more civilian casualties will occur and more fighting will continue. You're right, those higher up should be held accountable, but until you've looked down the barrel of a rifle pointed directly at you - you have no place to judge what it's like to give an order, or make a life or death decision.

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK AT THE POSTER.

Defence?

Its their country. You invaded them.

Defence?

Its their country. You invaded them.

They invaded Iran, and Kuwait, and failed to live up to the cease fire that they signed Feb. 28, 1991.

There was no Peace Treaty, the war was never ended, and that state of war still existed between Iraq and the Coalition.

They invaded Iran, and Kuwait, and failed to live up to the cease fire that they signed Feb. 28, 1991.

There was no Peace Treaty, the war was never ended, and that state of war still existed between Iraq and the Coalition.

You're justifying the Iraqi invasion because Iraq had invaded Kuwait thirteen years prior?

The coalition was an illusion, and it's gone. The Iraqi threat to Americans was an illusion.

The Iraqi threat is gone. The treaty with Saddam has no present meaning. So let it go, and it's gone. The occupation has no benefit, no meaning, and it's time to come home.

Leave Iraqis to build back what we disrupted without us- it's their home not ours, we're not helping. Leave Iraqis to fight things out if they must- it's not our fight, not on any side. It's time to let go of all these illusions and just go home.