Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NK/China/Iraq etc.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NK/China/Iraq etc.....

    I am starting a new thread as the old one would not load.

    Firstly my overall point is to highlight the failings of the UN not comend them.

    I read your words about how friendly the South Koreans are. Just as I imagine the North Korean people to be also. The North Koreans do not constitute a threat to South Korea or Japan - because of the US forces based in that theatre. Isn't that enough ? Any attack on South Korea would instantly involve US troops - hence an attack on South Korea by North Korea would be classed as an attack on the US would it not ?

    The 'accidental' bombings by US forces of civilian targets is highlighted to accenuate the frequency of accidental attacks by US forces. Maybe a little constraint would not go amiss. I mean 6000+ Afghan civilian casualties is a little high.

    As for International Laws regarding immunity for US personnel from prosecution - the US chose not to be a signotory. Why ? I have seen several programmes on the BBC regarding US direct invlovement in the massacre of 5000 Taliban prisoners. This direct involvement was standing by and watching. It is commonly accepted that the US forces were in charge of prisoners and there transit to and from locations. So why not stop mis-treatment .."because the Afghans have been killing each other for thousands of years..." - bulls**t.

    I have served my time in the forces also and I am aware of the thin grey line that exists for servicemen and women in times of conflict. However, when a crime is committed it needs to be punished. Whoever it is.

    The coalition fought Iraq - not just the US. Now there is no Coalition, so no war. The war is over and has been for 11 years. Leave the Iraqi people be. Saddam will die one day and that will be that. Israel constantly breaks UN resolutions....as does Iraq......No missiles flying into Israel.

  • #2
    Is your source for the 6000+ civilian casualties in Afghanistan from the report made by the Woman's Studies professor from Vermont?

    I think you've been reading too much Fisk, too, regarding your other claims.
    Last edited by Tex; 18 Nov 02, 17:50.

    Comment


    • #3
      The 'accidental' bombings by US forces of civilian targets is highlighted to accenuate the frequency of accidental attacks by US forces. Maybe a little constraint would not go amiss. I mean 6000+ Afghan civilian casualties is a little high.
      Where do you get this information from? 6,000 people dead? Look, I'm not denying that there are some accidential death as results of a few stray missiles or mistaken identity, but you just can't blame the entire US forces or automatically make them out to be evil and "baby-killers" as some people used to call US veterans who fought in Vietnam War. It's a lie, period.

      I can see you got some information from BBC, I must warn you that it's one of the most liberal boardcasting companies in the world, and I wouldn't bet my life on any information that BBC claimed to be authenatic. Just as I wouldn't bet on CNN, or ABC to make objective analysis of any event that is happening across the world. My advise would be look for different source of information other than BBC, try look on internet, get your brain working, that's what I am doing right now. I rarely listen or watch any big media company in making informed opinions about any important event.

      Israel constantly breaks UN resolutions....as does Iraq......No missiles flying into Israel.
      This is not true. Israel has not broken any UN resolution. Israel was backed into corner when UN is full of Arab members hell-bent on exterminating Israel at all cost, in fact, UN is probably the most baised organization I have ever known. The fact remains that UN passed more than 300 resolutions against Israel, and there are only a few UN resolutions that actually supported Israel at all, if there is such thing as UN support! Moreover, UN sponsored a racially-baised UN conference on Zionism a few years ago, Bush was furious, and Sharon was angry.

      Israel is one of the most hated countries in the world, it's a fact that probably the world hate Israel more than America. That is why America MUST support Israel, it is a democratic country troubled by internal terrorists hell-bent on killing innocent Jewish children, and people who merely want to be left alone. You've got Arabs training their children to be suicidical-bombers, so you can see Israel can't be blamed for Arab problems.

      Israel cannot afford to give up what's left of her dignity to hordes of Arabs wanting to blast Israel off the planet at ALL costs, period.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cheetah772


        This is not true. Israel has not broken any UN resolution. Israel was backed into corner when UN is full of Arab members hell-bent on exterminating Israel at all cost (...)

        Israel cannot afford to give up what's left of her dignity to hordes of Arabs wanting to blast Israel off the planet at ALL costs, period.

        Dan
        Dan,

        You were speaking about not relying on biased sources of information in the same post...May I suggest you read something else than the Jerusalem Post for your info on Israel

        I don't know if you did it intentionally, but the way you portray Israel as a purely innocent and angelic state is far from the truth. Palestinian terrorism is indeed killing Israelis on a regular basis, but some acts of the IDF in the occupied territories are certainly bordering on war crimes. That is not counting the racist views against Arabs of the extremist fringe of the Likud Party. These extremists are no better than the Hamas and Hezbollah extremists.

        Everyone should admit that at this point, both Israelis and Palestinians are equally guilty of this endless and futile violence (you attack me, I attack you, you attack me, I attack you)...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cheetah772


          Where do you get this information from? 6,000 people dead? Look, I'm not denying that there are some accidential death as results of a few stray missiles or mistaken identity, but you just can't blame the entire US forces or automatically make them out to be evil and "baby-killers" as some people used to call US veterans who fought in Vietnam War. It's a lie, period.

          I can see you got some information from BBC, I must warn you that it's one of the most liberal boardcasting companies in the world, and I wouldn't bet my life on any information that BBC claimed to be authenatic. Just as I wouldn't bet on CNN, or ABC to make objective analysis of any event that is happening across the world. My advise would be look for different source of information other than BBC, try look on internet, get your brain working, that's what I am doing right now. I rarely listen or watch any big media company in making informed opinions about any important event.

          This is not true. Israel has not broken any UN resolution. Israel was backed into corner when UN is full of Arab members hell-bent on exterminating Israel at all cost, in fact, UN is probably the most baised organization I have ever known. The fact remains that UN passed more than 300 resolutions against Israel, and there are only a few UN resolutions that actually supported Israel at all, if there is such thing as UN support! Moreover, UN sponsored a racially-baised UN conference on Zionism a few years ago, Bush was furious, and Sharon was angry.

          Israel is one of the most hated countries in the world, it's a fact that probably the world hate Israel more than America. That is why America MUST support Israel, it is a democratic country troubled by internal terrorists hell-bent on killing innocent Jewish children, and people who merely want to be left alone. You've got Arabs training their children to be suicidical-bombers, so you can see Israel can't be blamed for Arab problems.

          Israel cannot afford to give up what's left of her dignity to hordes of Arabs wanting to blast Israel off the planet at ALL costs, period.

          Dan
          I do not hate Israel, but I do not hate the Palestinians either. My sources for the casulaties in Afghanistan are many, both off the net and TV/Newspapers and a casualty is not neccessarily a dead person, does include injured. You know - no legs, broken back etc. I do not blame Israel for Arab problems either, did I say that ? Israel has broken resolutions regarding the occupation of various zones. I believe I am getting my brain working enough to make my own decisions on current affairs. So let's not forget that most of the problems in Middle East (inluding Al Qaeda) stem from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

          Comment


          • #6
            Take away Israel today and tomorrow the Middle East would have the same set of problems they face today. Except Middle Eastern governments would have a new problem: who now should we blame for all our inadequacies?

            The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a mere sympton of a larger problem.
            Last edited by Tex; 18 Nov 02, 17:58.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Marko
              I read your words about how friendly the South Koreans are. Just as I imagine the North Korean people to be also. The North Koreans do not constitute a threat to South Korea or Japan - because of the US forces based in that theatre. Isn't that enough ? Any attack on South Korea would instantly involve US troops - hence an attack on South Korea by North Korea would be classed as an attack on the US would it not ? [/QUOTE]

              The United States has thousands of troops deployed in South Korea. Should a nuclear bomb detonate at one of our bases, we would incur high casualties. The outcry would be so great, the US might elect to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This of course would incite massive condemnation internationally.

              We have a right to protect our forces and intrest from what we perceive as a clear threat to it. In an earlier post, you said the North Koreans developed the weapons are to stop the US from making a "moral crusade" to disarm them. NK didn't develop their nuclear program overnight. More importantly, they have repeatedly entered into agreements, which we have obeyed, and they haven't. North Korea's nuclear program started long before President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech.

              I don't believe the US should just sit by and wiait until we have 2,000 or 3,000 dead soldiers to account for. If there is a way to prevent such a horrfic tragedy from occurring, then we should take it. I'm not saying we should attack North Korea. (I don't see how that would be productive at this time.) However, we shouldn't sit by and do nothing. The US, Japan, and a number of nations, including China, see a nuclear-armed North Korea as a serious threat. We are employing diplomatic and some economic pressure to encourage a change of tune from NK. Yet, if the situation worsens, military action should not be excluded as a possible option.

              Originally posted by Marko

              As for International Laws regarding immunity for US personnel from prosecution - the US chose not to be a signotory. Why ? I have seen several programmes on the BBC regarding US direct invlovement in the massacre of 5000 Taliban prisoners. This direct involvement was standing by and watching. It is commonly accepted that the US forces were in charge of prisoners and there transit to and from locations. So why not stop mis-treatment .."because the Afghans have been killing each other for thousands of years..." - bulls**t.

              I have served my time in the forces also and I am aware of the thin grey line that exists for servicemen and women in times of conflict. However, when a crime is committed it needs to be punished. Whoever it is.
              I encourage you to provide evidence of this slaughter. I can not recall a single report of US involved in massacres. As for standing by and watching, while it might seem immoral, intervening could compromise the entire operation and endanger personnel. US troops, to my knowlegdge, are instructed instead to notify proper authorities of the war crime. They do not have to try to stop it. This applies to SOF and other liason forces who are too small in size to be really effective and mission successs depends on cooperation from the locals, no matter how bad they are. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

              You and the rest of the world might question this rule, but those who understand special operations and Foreign Interal Defense missions knows this is not uncommon. If a man shoots someone in the head near you, are you guilty of a crime? Not unless you don't report it. If those troops did witness atrocities committed by NA forces, their responsibility was to report the incident, not try and stop it, possibly becoming victims, and compromising the mission.

              I'm certain other FID capable units have similar rules of operation.

              Originally posted by Marko

              The coalition fought Iraq - not just the US. Now there is no Coalition, so no war. The war is over and has been for 11 years. Leave the Iraqi people be. Saddam will die one day and that will be that. Israel constantly breaks UN resolutions....as does Iraq......No missiles flying into Israel.
              First, two wrongs don't make a right. (Two rights make a left ) Just because someone doesn't obey the a rule, doesn't mean you have the right to go out and break them, nor does it exempt you from punishment. I don't like the double standard, but unfortunately it exists. The Palestinians are not making their case any better by going out and killing innocent Israelis. To say one side is to blame and not the other is a mistake. They are both responsible. However, do you think war or international peacekeepers will stop any of them. The conflict is deeply rooted and more difficult to solve than Iraq.

              And THE LAST THING WE NEED IS IRAQ WEIGHING IN ON THE BATTLE. Saddam has encouraged Palestinian terrorism, and offered support for terrorist's families. Like Nasser, Saddam could see Israel as his ticket to Islamic supremacy. (I doubt that would happen even if he did overrun Israel.)

              The war in against Iraq was conditional. Iraq had terms to meet or the ceasefire could be cancelled. Please review Resolution 687, which was filed under Chapter 7. Iraq hasn't complied, so they must be prepared to take the butt-whipping we could have given them.

              If the world don't believe Iraq is a threat, don't fight. Let the US get into trouble all by itself. We believe Saddam has remained uncompliant for too long. The agreed to these terms in the ceasefire. He understood the risk. Limited air strikes, and a bunch of talk has yet to work. If he doesn't give up those WMDs, Bush should launch Operation Regime Change. If the UK doesn't feel he should owe up to the resolutions, and they've sign a treaty with Iraq that's them. We have set conditions. He will either comply, or we'll do what we could have.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                I do recall reading an article in newsweek about the locking of Taliban prisoners in containers and trucking them across afghanistan. Most of the passendgers died, and when the dead were unloaded into the prison and barried in mass graves, the US soldiers stood on guard. About the Isreali issue. Isreal is just part of the religous/economic crisis that the middle east is taking place in. Isreal is just one of the pieces of a much much larger problem of the goverment/religons role. The Iran Bush descrobed in his now infamous "axis of evil" speech was the Iran governed by the clerics. He needs to take a closer look at the goverment and the people. The middle east needs time, not Generaly Secretary Kofi, to help makes up its mind about the direction it is moving in.
                Doesn't read Al Franken, can't watch Al Jazeera, will attack dumbasses. Anyone but Rumsfeld '04.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Deltapooh

                  The United States has thousands of troops deployed in South Korea. Should a nuclear bomb detonate at one of our bases, we would incur high casualties. The outcry would be so great, the US might elect to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This of course would incite massive condemnation internationally.

                  I encourage you to provide evidence of this slaughter. I can not recall a single report of US involved in massacres. As for standing by and watching, while it might seem immoral, intervening could compromise the entire operation and endanger personnel. US troops, to my knowlegdge, are instructed instead to notify proper authorities of the war crime. They do not have to try to stop it. This applies to SOF and other liason forces who are too small in size to be really effective and mission successs depends on cooperation from the locals, no matter how bad they are. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

                  Do you really think North Korea would contemplate using Nuclear weapons ? I do not, as I said earlier it is the only thing that guarantees their independence, however you view their political stance.

                  I have seen several sources, including the 'Newsweek' article regarding US troops standing guard whilst prisoners were shot. They were on the ground to do a job. That did not include watching prisoners being executed. Look at the larger picture - an uprising involving several hundred prisoners, what about one involving 5000 - serious headache. As far as I am concerned the US forces were in command of all operation at the time, therefore the accountability is theirs.

                  I do not see Iraq as a threat to the British people. I see Saddam as an evil dictator, like many others across the world. My only regret is that he was not removed when the chance is there. The double standard is coming back 11 years later to do a job that should have been carried out earlier. He does not deserve to be in power nor should he be permitted to encourage terrorism. And he is definately not the only world leader to sponsor terrorism. My own government has been directly involved in terrorism with regards to Northern Ireland, obviously they deny the charges made. The US has funded terrorists, opposition groups etc. for years. One rule for one eh ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Marko

                    I have seen several sources, including the 'Newsweek' article regarding US troops standing guard whilst prisoners were shot. They were on the ground to do a job. That did not include watching prisoners being executed. Look at the larger picture - an uprising involving several hundred prisoners, what about one involving 5000 - serious headache. As far as I am concerned the US forces were in command of all operation at the time, therefore the accountability is theirs.
                    So we execute prisoners as method ensure security? The execution of prisoners almost ensures resistance. Prisoners feeling they have nothing else to loose will strike out. Secondly, by killing executing the prisoners, we loose valuable intelligence. While one can argue we interrogated then started shooting, I still find these accounts hard to believe.

                    Again, I strongly encourage you to research Special Operations codes and procedures. They do not, and should not require personnel deployed to intervene in possible war crimes should they believe it compromises the overall mission, relationship with local fanctions, or in any way seriously compromise the campaign objectives. They are to report these incidents, not try to stop them.

                    I've read some of these reports. And yes, I've read the Newsweek report. All admit US presence was small (between twelve and sixteen men). Yet, some want to promote the ideal that US forces were in control of the North Alliance forces, thus making them accountable for the deaths of those who died in the containers.

                    Hogwash. If we were in control of NA, things would have went alot better than they did. In November, I recall criticizing our small presence and apparent trust of NA forces. And we had to watch as thousands of Al-Qaeda and Taliban troops, possibly including Bin Laden himself, escaped what should have been traps. A bunch of authors read some Vietnam 5th SOG stories and came to the conclusion we led Northern Alliance, and that the Aghan troops were acting on directives from President George Bush. There is no evidence whatsoever, that those troops were in control and could have changed how the prisoners were being treated by NA. In fact, the Newsweek article suggest the troops were present only at the pick-up and drop-off location. This is not where many of the prisoners died.

                    You are chasing the wrong people. That ODA 595 is not responsible for what happened. They were not in control. No article I've read even comes close to providing credible evidence otherwise. If those soldiers reported the incident to their commanders, then they did their job. Now if they didn't, that makes them co-conspirators after-the-fact, and liable the eyes of the law.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      IIRC before Kabul and Khandahar fell the US had less than 200 soldiers on the ground.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh


                        So we execute prisoners as method ensure security? The execution of prisoners almost ensures resistance. Prisoners feeling they have nothing else to loose will strike out. Secondly, by killing executing the prisoners, we loose valuable intelligence. While one can argue we interrogated then started shooting, I still find these accounts hard to believe.

                        I've read some of these reports. And yes, I've read the Newsweek report. All admit US presence was small (between twelve and sixteen men). Yet, some want to promote the ideal that US forces were in control of the North Alliance forces, thus making them accountable for the deaths of those who died in the containers.

                        You are chasing the wrong people. That ODA 595 is not responsible for what happened. They were not in control. No article I've read even comes close to providing credible evidence otherwise. If those soldiers reported the incident to their commanders, then they did their job. Now if they didn't, that makes them co-conspirators after-the-fact, and liable the eyes of the law.
                        I did not say US troops killed Taliban prisoners - you said that - I said US personnel stood and watched. The numbers mentioned include figures from 60 -160, even if it was one individual something should have been done, like reporting it perhaps ! Standing by why unarmed prioners are summarily executed makes them as guilty as those pulling the trigger. The US were in control, not the NA. Live with it. Soldiers (of any country) are just men - men make mistakes and lie and decieve to cover those mistakes up - fact of life. Nor did I say anyone 'was out of control', you said that. Look, a few people here seem to think that their home nation(s) are incapable of deciet and criminal activities, 'hogwash'. Every country in the world has its own agenda and will pursue that agenda at the cost of human suffering and misery. And that does include the US., as it also includes my country. And just because of this it does not mean I dislike my country, does it ? Countries, armies, soldiers and people make mistakes - deal with like a man. Oh yes...and I am not chasing anyone, just trying to highlight certain points of fact.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The US has a much better track record on this sort of thing than 99% of the armies out there. US forces have committed crimes in the past and when they did the US has sought to punish those responsible and make sure it doesn't happen again.

                          During the Panama invasion a First Sergeant was court martialled for an alleged incident of firing on a combatant after he surrendered. In Vietnam there were several high profile cases in which officers or NCO's were court martialled for illegal conduct. A Staff Sergeant that worked for me about two years ago was court martialled in Bosnia for striking a Serbian national who was refusing to cooperate. That NCO was disciplined and I doubt his career will ever recover. And that was from a simple rap on the chin!

                          I know how US soldiers are trained and led. I've led some of those missions and I taught classes on the Law of War when I was a senior instructor. There is zero tolerance in the US military for violating the Law of War. If US soldiers did violate international laws they will eventually be tried and punished for it. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. It is often extremely difficult to substantiate crimes against humanity on a battlefield.

                          Many of these reporters in Afghanistan hate the US and have an axe to grind. Of course they are going to show every little thing the US does in the worst possible light. We all know that. Hell, our own press does the same thing to us every day! It's hard to remember the last time the elite media had anything good to say about any of us.

                          It's wishful thinking to believe the US had the Northern Alliance warlords under its direct control. We haven't even achieved that yet! Afghan warlords are loyal to no one, not even their own country or government. They pay homage to the highest bidder and can't be trusted at all. If they were under our control our bases wouldn't be coming under attack on a daily basis.

                          Under the Taliban regime thousands of people were killed, mutilated, or imprisoned as a matter of daily policy. The US presence has went a long way toward restoring something of a normal life in this hellhole. We are giving them millions of dollars in aid and US policy has recently switched from pure combat operations to nation building and peacekeeping. The US is building roads, digging wells, helping to protect the fledgling Afhgan government and more. No, we can't hold their hand forever, but we are helping them to get back on the right track toward rejoining the legitimate international community.

                          The US took extreme precautions to minimize civilian casualties, but it's not possible to completely child-proof a battlefield. The Afghan warlords have been murdering each other for a long time and probably won't stop anytime soon, no matter what we do. The Afghan people are a hell of a lot better off today than they were a year ago.

                          I don't believe US forces had any role in any alleged warcrimes. But if they did, I will be the first to call for a trial. Oh, and I do seem to recall that some of those troops on the ground were Canadian, Australian, and British. I suppose they were not "in control" of anything nor did they inflict any civilian casualties.
                          Editor-in-Chief
                          GameSquad.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Maddog
                            Oh, and I do seem to recall that some of those troops on the ground were Canadian, Australian, and British. I suppose they were not "in control" of anything nor did they inflict any civilian casualties.
                            On the programme I viewed last week SAS members were clearly seen at Mars al Sharif (deined by UK government) firing at prisoners in the uprising. In the aftermath it could be clearly seen that many of the prisoners (now dead) still had there hands bound. So I disagree any soldier from any country can be in the wrong. A UK serviceman is being tried for killing an unarmed civilian in Afghanistan also.

                            I also like what you say about US forces and the strict rules they adhere to. Don't foget I am an ex-soldier too. It is not down to me to blame US soldiers for individual mistakes, but the government for covering up the fact. But then I would excpect my government to try (at least) to admonish blame from UK soldiers. That's life, and politics.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am of the same opinion as Deltapooh and Maddog regarding the conduct of soldiers in face of atrocities. Unless there is clear mandate to stop this or unless there are themselves threatened in the process, they are forbidden to intervene, although they need to report the events at once.

                              Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia in the 1992-1995 years have been witnesses to incredible acts of atrocity at that time, and their UN mandate limited their margin to intervene in those things. A TV serie was done about this in Canada and showed how the soldiers were caught between a rock and a hard place in such a situation. On one hand, you are witnessing inhuman acts, and your instincts tell you to stop that now. On the other hand, any intervention is seen by the belligerents as taking side with one or another and then the peacekeeping forces lose all credibility and that can endanger the whole mission.

                              I know this reasoning sounds completely cruel but when you are in the midst of such a heated situation (and not comfortably seated in front of your TV screen like most citizens), it is not that easy to take the right decision.

                              At least, these events were reported in details by the Canadian soldiers and after the war was finished, a lot of war criminals were arrested and they are still being chased today.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X