NATO kills Afghan shepherd boys.

Well said.

I get sick of someone taking the moral high ground over a thing, then, in the same breath, they (almost free of any empathy), give a free pass to mass murder, genocide, infanticide, and starvation, as long as it is carried out by 'their' Gov?

Terrible.

How can you trust anyone that begins at that positon, right? I mean, I am British, yet I am still able to see, and understand, and admit to the small fact that if you want to talk war crimes, the British establishment engaged in them, or ordered them, during WW2, I take no pride in the British destruction of Germany cities, I see nothing to cheer in all the deaths of good German people, I cannot find glory or satisfaction in such.

People then run off, and decide that because I can take no joy or pride in such things, that it must mean this or that, no, it simply means that I stop to think about the REALITY of such actions, wheresoever they may be, and how that must feel, and as hard as I try I cannot really understand, but I know it must be hell, to live through that, or to die through that.

All those civilains, you would have to be a ghoul to feel proud of that, surely?

Then people want to say, ah but what about these civilans, or that, or whatever, but you do not murder more people to this scale, as a solution to anything, I find it shameful that we actually celebrate such things, I find it ghoulish.

I cannot gloss over such things, just as I am sure that many Germans cannot take pride in bombing our cities, just as I am sure they have no pride in killing our people.

It sickens me when I have people try to rebuke me, on one had, then, in the next sentence, they are casually saying how a bloody Atom bombs in Japan was kind of okay, and 'probably the best thing'.

Really?

See, this is just a wrong for me. There is no sort of recognition there, is there, I have never excused or wanted ANYONE nuked, ever, yet the arrogance of some Americans, that have no idea what that must have been like, and even to this day, god knows the impact.

It is HORRIFYING, no excuses, rather than make it out to be good, why not at least try to see it for what it was?

If they cannot do this, then their feelings should not be hurt if someone shows them no mercy imo.

Rather than a flippant arrogance, what is wrong with some humility?

The scientists that worked on that project were not good men, were they? They were not applying their science for good, but for mass murder.

How does that make those scientists anything less than genocidal war criminals?

And all those that were behind the order to do it, for the President is usually a puppet, of course.

 

' If it emerges ' ? Who's going to prevent it ?

- - - Updated - - -

You speak as if war is inevitable and more important than civil society.

 

It is sometimes inevitable.

"ultimate war crimes" More hyperbole. Look, I'm not pro-war, but I'm also not naive enough to think this is as simple as people like moon make it out to be.

 

You just don't accept that your military is filled with sociopathic triggermen and incompetent wannabees. When they produce disaster you make excuses for them.

 

Let's give this idiot a lesson in history.

Tell me how many French civilians were slaughtered on D-DAY?

50,000....50,000 people mowed down by bombardments, gun-fire, tank-fire, battleship fire, cruiser fire, cross fire and counter battery fire.

That is war you dumb ass.

You probably never heard of French Admiral Jaques Jaujard, who commanded French naval units at Normandy. He said this before the invasion fleet started slinging shells into the French coast...

"Comrades! Frenchmen! Hear me! In moments we shall fire upon our countrymen, our homes, our families, our own flesh and blood who have suffered under four years of brutal occupation. Many will be destroyed but this is the price of our liberation God be with us....VIVE LA FRANCE...OPEN FIRE!"

We must chose...fight the *******ned war as it should be fought or leave and let the Afghans face their fate. If the Afghans have no balls to fight for their land or understand that in order to build their country and rid it of wild eyed Islamo-fascist vermin, some will unfortunatly die then f***k em and leave them.

War is not antiseptic, you can't perfectly fight it to avoid civilian deaths, that's idiotic. Had we done what you propose you stupid moron back in World War II? The world would be a fascist police state.

Some civilians died, get over it you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

#30 marked for review.

 

I hope they are made to pay dearly for their crimes, like the marine (*)(*)(*)(*)s who executed tied up prisoners in the Haditha massacre. They should have to have one of their days interrupted so they can be dragged into a courtroom before having the charges dropped.

Maybe it can be like in the Abu Ghraib, where innocent prisoners were tortured to death in brutal and sadistic fashion, and the soldiers smiling for the camera while doing it were subsequently charged with "dereliction of duty".

These extreme clampdowns and zero tolerance policies for war crimes leveled towards our few bad apples are what will somehow eventually possibly one day maybe prevent all these types of atrocities from continually occurring.

 

Did I say "ultimate"? Sorry I should have been more precise. "Supreme" was the word used by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Not hyperbole, just the reasoned opinion of men who knew what they were talking about, having just fought against the "supreme international crime" and brought some of its perpetrators to justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

If you think America's wars over the last the last 6+ decades were defensive wars, you are the naive one.

 

War crimes are kind of a joke, honestly.

Only the losers of wars tend to be convicted of them. It's not as much about justice as it is about revenge.

Then again, I'm not suggesting that our most recent wars were defensive.

We could have handled Afghanistan in various other ways than war.

However.... once you commit to a war, you can't proceed with it with your hands tied behind your back.

Moon also seems to have very selective outrage about this conflict or any other that America takes part in. I've never seen him post a thread about the actions of insurgents, for example.

So, let's be honest here. This isn't really about morals. This is just people taking sides.

 

There is no valid comparison to WWII here. The only war being fought in Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.) is the one America brought to it. A war of choice, as you implied, that has no justification. The only way the war should be fought is not have started it in the first place. Too late for the innocent dead... (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Your opinion may seem practical, but it is immoral. America was founded by people who knew that might does not make right. That America is now the world's most aggressive nation is a repudiation of her founding principles. And you are a perfect example of the "pragmatic" mind set that helped bring that about.

As for Moon, I'll let him defend his own thread as I'm sure he's perfectly capable.

 

Really now?

The Founding Fathers had their strong points, but were they really as moral as you're positing?

All men are created equal -- except for slaves, and men without land.

Our relations with the indigenous people of our land weren't particularly moral either.

In every era, you can find moral and immoral behavior. Granted, morals themselves are relative.

 

The NATO ********s killed four shepherd kids just last year;

What did they learn ? They learned that pseudo-patriots made excuses for them and that could get away with it.

 

It's a fraudulent war that shouldn't even be happening. What if it was your kids? Or two of your family members or your close friends kids? Would they still just be colateral damage?

We went to war in afghanistan because of 9-11 correct? Eight extremists flew aircraft into the world trade towers so that means we need to destroy an entire country because of it?

Since when do we punish an entire nation based on the actions of eight extremists?

Do you think everyone living in afghanistan shares the same views as those who attacked the WTC?

What the usa is doing with the afghan war is no different than if eight kids in school formed a gang and attacked the vice principle and the principle then declared war on every student. It makes no sense to punish people who weren't involved. Not to mention, the afghan war has spilled over into pakistan, yemen, syria, libya, and other lands. The usa is currently attacking five or six countries for no reason other than imperialism.

 

Such patriots, as Dr Johnson put it, are the last refuge of the scoundrel.

 

Not to the victims.

I don't want to get in between you guys too much now but are you playing devil's advocate here? The only reason I ask is because your stance in this case seems rather out of character for you. You usually come across as extremely level headed and objective and these are your traits I admire the most, but here it seems you're not recognizing clear distinctions between just and unjust conduct which is uncharacteristic for you.

Maybe I've not witnessed you discuss this issue before. No offense meant here BTW do carry on.

 

Why would he? This forum isn't populated by dozens upon dozens of people constantly defending every single atrocity the insurgents ever do, insisting that insurgents who commit war crimes and violence against civilians are just a few bad apples and don't mind if they're let off the hook, that insurgents are all brave and valiant freedom fighters fighting for freedom and are the most morally upstanding fighting force the world has ever seen and can do no wrong, and any civilian that an insurgent kills deserve it because that civilian was a "terrorist", and that sawing off Daniel Pearl's head led them to the capture of Nick Berg etc. etc. etc.

This is a debate forum you know.

 

I didn't say I agreed with the war. I'm saying that, if you're going to fight a war, civilians are going to die.

If you have a beef with why we fought this war, I can sympathize, because I'd like us to leave ASAP myself. It is rather pointless in many respects.

However, this thread seems to mostly be about how we're fighting the war, not why.

How we're fighting it is relatively tame compared to wars in the past.

 

I guess the best way I can summarize my position is that I'm anti-war most of the time, but.... when committing to a war, I'm ruthlessly pragmatic.

The "hearts and minds" thing doesn't work. Wars are won by domination.

For example, we won WW2 through a combination of overwhelming forces, bombing strategic targets (many of which were civilian), and by keeping media somewhat constrained.

War is very different from all other aspects of life, and so it can't be viewed under the same terms as an open society during peace.

This is part of why I'm very reluctant for us to get involved in any war. Once the fight begins, you never know where it will take you.

I would argue this concept of limiting war to certain rules is very naive. Enforcing said rules is a fool's errand most of the time.

There's really no telling how many crimes all sides commit during war, and what defines crimes seems to be somewhat arbitrary anyway.

I mean, seriously.... war is mass murder. It's not going to be pretty no matter what rules you claim to follow.

By the same token, one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Moon seems to view the Taliban as freedom fighters. I view them as the enemy.

Either way, it's not so much good vs. bad as much as it is just one set of interests vs. another. The ethics are of limited concern.

And unfortunately, being a civilian in the crossfire is often more deadly than being a combatant.

Is it right? Probably not. Is it inevitable? Yes.

 

Sure, it is, but we all take sides.

I just happen to be on the opposing one to his.

It doesn't mean that I agree with our interventionism. Whenever possible, I vote for candidates that are less interventionist or "non-interventionist."

At the same time, however, I ultimately care more about the fate of our soldiers than I do of random people in remote areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Maybe that's callous, but I can assure you that they care more about their own people than about us.

It's just part of human nature.

Also, I generally find it hard to relate to cultures radically different from my own. When I look at what the Taliban ruled like, our own rule seems pretty tame by comparison.

 

What a joke.

The Taliban or the US War Machine.

Who has murdered more innocents worldwide?

Who is most dangerous?

No contest.

 

Parliament's not sitting at the moment, federally anyway. I did see comment in the press that the ADF has accepted "joint responsibility" for the incident. What that means I don't know. Speculating wildly, it could be that our special forces called in an attack helicopter which either (a) hit the wrong targets or (b) hit the right targets but the right targets had been misidentified by the special forces. No idea though and it's gone a bit quiet in the media, lots of other trashy stuff happening here that they are now focusing on.

 

Hey, if throwing acid on schoolchildren is your thing, I won't judge.

 

Jack I snipped some of your comment, not meaning to be a prick but just saving space and I wanted to focus on just one thing.

You are quite right that the British forces during the Second World War committed what would be seen now as war crimes. Of course not only is history written by the victors, the bad bits are covered up by the victors. I doubt if the Nazis had prevailed if we would have found out at Lidice, for example, or the death camps. They would have disappeared from official memory. I also suspect that the Allies did a fair bit of summary punishment on the battlefield (there is plenty of evidence of German POWs being murdered). But something like wiping out an entire town because an officer was assassinated might be something I would hope the Allies stayed away from.

Bombing civilians. Get ready to be outraged Jack. It had to be done. Yes, it was state terrorism. And I'm not going to use the fact that the Nazis bombed British cities and deliberately set out to terrorise civilians and non-combatants by bombing non-military targets to justify it. My justification is simply this: Britain was fighting for its existence. No matter what the progress of the war at the time of the firestorm at Dresden, the raid was a demonstration by the Allies to the German High Command that they wouldn't hesitate to go to total war level if necessary - and they did, patently they did.

Total war happened in the Second World War and it was necessary. I won't look to any other moral justification than that. It was necessary.

 

Why would that bother you?