Under the Geneva Conventions, use of a hospital for military operations allows said hospital to be considered a viable military target. Now, from what I've read, they had snipers on the roof/upperfloors and machine guns positioned in the windows. That makes it a viable military target. If this pisses you off, tough. They should have kept the wounded and the fighters apart.

If you have specific evidence where Marines or other allied troops hurt civilians (people who were clearly non-combatants in a situations that provided no reasonable ambiguity) then please present it. I'll been looking over your points and its alot of outrage but its rather light on facts.

Everyone knows diplomatic language is very vague. As is evident in the statement made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. He did assert that these were on going issues. He only stated that there were reports of violations. Who is making the reports? Honestly, that link hardly supports any of you your premises.

Yes, it appears there may have been isolated violations; however, none of us will know the full facts until the investigations are completed. I know from personal experience that people can act as though they want to surrender then start fighting again. Some of the people we are fighting now don’t have our same sensibilities regarding parlay. I think it is extremely important to understand this in the context these incidence.

In terms of the overall operational ROE, again we have lawyers whose job it is to ensure that the ROE meets and in most cases exceeds the law and western customs of land warfare. You will also be interested to know that the layers will sit on targeting selection boards. Thus, any large pre-selected target like a hospital being used as a combat headquarters will be review by a lawyer to ensure we are not violating any laws. Further the lawyers usually want solid evidence that the hospital now being used for offensive operations.

Force protection-"I do not think it means, what you think it means" force protection is a term used to describe measures we take in order to protect our personnel and/or equipment from terrorist when we are NOT engaged in offensive operations. Please use it correctly from now on.

If you want to call Americans cowards for targeting a hospital, which was being used for military operations…, well I don’t know what to say. I think the cowards are the guys who used the hospital in that way, with the intent to insight bleeding hearts such as you. Further, we gave lots of warning before we started the offensive. We gave civilians an opportunity to get out weeks of notice…hell by doing so we gave some terrorist the opportunity to get out. At what point would you say that the civilians are reasonable for there own safety? Had we sealed off the city and let no one in or out you would have a valid point, but that is not the case. Personally, I would say about 75% of the city’s population had good sense and the other 25% are Darwin Award Candidates.

I don't really see anything wrong with the way the ROE is being conducted- keep in mind the measures the Americans took to get people who don't want to die out
also keep in mind that the 'enemy' doesn't wear a uniform and sets up camp in vital and non-vital civilian areas, mosques included :rolleyes:

Do you think the proportion that stayed behind is as high as 25%? Not quibbling, just curious - would have thought is was in the 7% to 10% range...

Last thing I read it was something like 300,000 people before the attack and only 60,000 during. (~20% left)

"must be brought to justice, be they members of the Multinational Force or insurgents. "

This isn't even specific allegations against any one side. Sure, there are always reports. Anyone someone dies people get mad. Even in the US you hear stories about someone shooting at the police, they shoot back and kill him and his family tries to sue the police for killing him.

Its interesting to note that they address the use of human shields in that report. Do you honestly thing the US is doing that?? Maybe you need to look as the other side as causing some violations. Did you know that pretending to be injured/surrender and continuing to fight is a violation of the geneva conventions and is techincally a war crime?

I read some of the same figures Tempus read. However, that was very early on in the operation. We certainly have a better Intel now and perhaps the 7%-10% is the current estimate.

I personally thought 25% was a little high but they were the numbers reported in the papers.

Yep, if you kill someone after you surrender it is murder under the Geneva Conventions.

Yes. I'll explain why in the end.
The fact that one side is guilty of war crimes doesn't make the other innocent. Not much I can do about violations by the resistance fighters, except work to put them out of a job.

I've read that some combatants in Fallujah have "abused" the white flag. I don't mind it as a dirty trick - they're outgunned, so they need to delude the enemy in more ways than he can imagine. They need to fight with greater cowardice than the enemy (Lother5150 dismisses the term, but until he provides a better one, I'll use this). I mind it because it robs non-combatants of the white flag's protection.

I wouldn't be surprised if some resistance fighters used human shields, to varying degrees. No doubt they think they're defending something, or someone. They might think Marines will desecrate a mosque (by entering it), for example, if they don't use force to defend the building. Some are likely defending their own family members, or think they are. There must be a few among them who in desperation would take a neighbour hostage, if those people are the same as mine.

I didn't intend it to. It's just there to remind us of the current official status, to ground the argument.
I tried to point out earlier that the resistance fighters believe they will be brutalised and perhaps murdered if captured. You see how that can cause problems for both sides.

A good lawyer pays no regard to ethics. His function is to mark (or argue to) the limits of legal interpretation. Lawyers determined, for example, that intercepting Canadians on flight stopovers, rendering them to states infamous for torture, and pressuring those third party states to extract confessions of Al-Qaeda membership, is not illegal. Lawyers also determined that American interrogators could strip detainees naked, drug them, put them in stress positions, splash them with ice water, employ repeated rectal exams, and so forth - because they determined that unless lasting physical harm is done, or the practice has already been cited, then it's not torture and therefore not illegal. So I'm confident army lawyers are busy enough mapping out what's not illegal.

I wasn't even thinking about rules of engagement. By the "overall operation" being a war crime I meant that 250,000 people have been made refugees in a country with 75% unemployment and violence everywhere. They had to pack up and flee. Their city was ruined. Most of them are now starving or begging. Half of those refugees are children who should be in school right now. As designed, the operation destroyed 250,000 lives. If that isn't plain, then Lothar5150 you must have the most brutal understanding of human life. I think human life means a little more than just whether a person is breathing or not.

On the other hand, a pro-war newspaper published an article about 1,000 refugees lined up to receive food aid from the US military. The story included a photo of some sad character frowning behind the razorwire barrier. It said there was some confusion, and the soldiers helped the people keep order, without elaborating on what this meant.

Maybe Fallujans could use some help with ovens to get rid of the corpses. Bring in an excavator, and help.
OK so you've negated two terms now. This is fun. Shall I keep guessing what the correct term is?
No.
Both sides engage in propaganda. I realise you trust statements by the US military or pro-war media as the only truth, so we'll just have to build our picture from those alone.

So, as you suggested and your fellow hawks assert, the hospital and clinics in Fallujah proper had to be destroyed to prevent the assault from looking inhumane through the lens of liberal media. I'll let that stand. The truth of the intent is self evident. Whether or not foreign fighters had violated the neutrality of those institutions, or to what degree, we can't know and probably never will.

We share a clearer view of that main hospital on the outskirts of Fallujah, taken early on by US and US led forces. Drawing only from US official statements and pro-war media quoting American forces, we get this: The hospital was surrounded. An ambulance was fired upon (and stopped) as it tried to leave. Loudspeakers were used, telling people in the hospital they'd be shot if they tried to leave. A commando group composed of foreign fighters stormed the building; they handcuffed the people inside, searched the facility. Not one shot was fired. There was little resistance. Apparently the resistance fighters had respected the neutrality of this institution. American forces and embedded journalists entered, and remained in the hospital - they still occupy it. Hospital staff and ambulance crews have not been allowed to leave the hospital, not for any reason. They can't just go home, for example. In short: they're hostages. Wounded civilians or resistance fighters have not arrived at the hospital. A US commander was quoted saying his men are "defending" the hospital. Presumably this means US forces would take up firing positions in the hospital if it came under attack.

Agreed but we do not condone war crimes. In fact we prosecute our service men and women who commite them. The other side commits war crimes as there normal mode of operation. I fought in Iraq; please don’t presume you know more about what is going on


FYI the white flag does not mean you surrender. It only means you wish to talk, I am no longer hostile. If you through down your weapon and approach with your hands in plain sight…that is surrender. I agree with you, fainting surrender does rob non-combatants of the ability to remain out of the fight. This is precisely why it is illegal to surrender then start fighting again.

This is bullshit. They could get the women and children out and stay in fight.


Your resistance fighters are Al Qaeda members from surrounding countries.

I agree with you lawyers are only interested in the rule of law. However, I am sure that the rule of law is one of the pillars of civilization. Nevertheless, you were saying I was a war criminal and criminal is a legal term. There for one should use lawyers in order to assure his or her actions don’t constitute a crime.



Most were being and starving before the offensive. In part, that was due to the insurgents attacking US convoys filled with food and clean water. What you fail to understand is that their situation was not going to get any better as long as the foreign fighters where in their city. Sure, a good chunk of the city was destroyed. Oh well…so was Hamburg and Berlin. They will get a new city and have full employment over the next few months. The money to rebuild the city was on standby before we even started the operation.

Life is brutal, however, if you are as in tuned to Japanese culture as you claim. You know that warriors have a greater appreciation for life than other members of society. Just yesterday, one of my oldest friends, Mohamed, and I were having beers and discussing how lucky we both were to be born in America. We both hoped that the rest of the world could live as free and as well as we do someday.


It’s not my job to articulate for you. However, I will correct you if you use the wrong terms.


Ok, if we run this great propaganda machine, why do you think the tape of the Marine shooting the insurgent in the mosque is all over the news? We want people to see the truth, even when it not in our best interest or when facts are twisted and used against us. We put up with the latter because of our respect for the former. Don’t you find it interesting that Al Jazzera would not show the tape of Margaret Hassan being shot but did air the tape of the Marine shooting the insurgent at the mosque.

We will know this is the 21st Century and I am sure there is evince created by drones and missile cameras. Just give it time. Just as we saw the footage of the gunmen on top of the mosque in An Najaf.


What is your point? We don’t want the hospital staff leaving the hospital because there is a battle going on in the streets. It is our responsibility to ensure their safety, as they are clearly non-combatants. They are no more hostages than people who are told they cannot go back to their homes during a natural disaster.

I’m still baffled by the “liberal” view of this war. We go in and remove an undisputedly evil dictator and the “liberal” complain. Some how in your twisted minds the Iraqi’s were living in a benevolent, peaceful and plentiful paradise. Then America stepped in and ruined paradise. What a twisted view of the world you have.

Obviously, people with your view don’t value democracy or freedom. If you did you would be celebrating the fact that we got rid of Saddam (whatever the pretext) and are moving with all deliberate speed to get them to elections. I personally have high hopes for Iraq as a free nation and for the Iraqi people as free people. Finally if I were asked to go free another nation, I would go in a New York Minute. Because I was able to be, part of something greater than myself, which will change the world in a positive way. People like you just complain and do nothing.

not very constructive, but i need to say it

Lothar you are such an #@$$#@#
:D i feel better :D

Every bit of news you receive from our government is slanted and has been censored. I personally know 2 guys in the AirForce that worked on that team. They said that it jaded every bit of information they ever saw after that. They're probably just traitor flip-floppers though, right?

Yes, other countries do it too and yes, Al J does it as well. Why would you think your government doesn't? You can't be that naive.

M
you object to reasoned debate ?
or just prefer denigrating propaganda ?

Hey, woah! I'm one of those liberal types and I don't have that view at all.
I didn't think we should have invaded (still don't). Not because Saddam was such a great guy but because it was pretty clear that it was going to be a mess. Because we hadn't been attacked by Iraq and I didn't see it as our job to give up American lives (not to mention Iraqi lives) and treasure to rescue the Iraqi people from Saddam. Our leadership presumed the Iraqi people would be so happy they it would be the liberation of Paris from the Nazis all over again. Also, opening a second front when we didn't need to constituted "taking our eye off the ball" in the "war against terror". Who knows what might have happened at Tora Bora without this distraction. We might even have the SOB who did attack the US. I want him in a cell a lot more than Saddam - and GW says he "doesn't think about him much".

I'm also pretty sure that we thought that Iraq had WMDs because we sold them (or the makings) to him. Some day Dick Cheney and Halliburton are going to get caught on this one - although likely not while there's a Republican majority in Congress. Think they're willing to go after one of their own? I don't.

So there's my "twisted view of the world".

Sorry if I struck a nerve, but it is true. The neo-liberals have complete turned their back on some fundamental liberal ideals. Like freedom, democracy, human rights and using power to help the little guy get justice.

I guess I am a through back to the Democrats like Kennedy and Roosevelt, guys who believed in a robust foreign policy and were willing to stand up for the fundamental principals of this nation. It would be nice to see a Democrat with balls again. Hell we might be able to win an election once that happens.

I know a guy who has a friend, whose sister’s boyfriends, cousin is an Airman who cleans the toilets on a base where they have a public affairs officer...Sorry, but no...That gives you no credibility. On the other hand, I have real credibility.

The only thing that ever is censored is footage or information, which could be tactically or operationally useful AT THE TIME. A Marine shooting an apparently injured and unarmed man still made the news, there was no attempt to cover that up or censor it. If there were anything, you would not want public to see it would be that incident. There is a free press in this country and believe me the press knows it is a Constitutional right.

You are only naive if you think the press is interested in the truth and "the man" is trying to suppress the truth. I remember listing to the news on shortwave during the first weeks of the war when the news was reporting on how we were bogged down, in a quagmire etc...When in truth we where killing bad guys and moving on to the next objective so fast that we had to finally slow down so our logistics could catch up. My team chief was wondering what war they were reporting on. The news just wants you to tune in, buy the newspaper or click on their website and they need to say something dramatic to do it. I would challenge you to look at the reports that came out during the first three weeks of the war and compare that with what you know now. I think you will find that the two are very different. You should also consider that no reporters are complaing about cenorship.

I retract my statement. You are that naive.

If you have never served and you have not been to Iraq...how would you really know what ground truth is. I have the benefit of experience what do you bring to the conversation that backs your assertion. At least I have a lot credibility.

Honestly, I was well received going into Basra. Smiles and waves from everyone who lined the streets. I would post the pictures but you guys still won’t believe it. :rolleyes: so why bother.

GW is correct about Osama. It would be nice to have him but he is not the center of gravity in this war on terrorism. I'm an advocate of the Che treatment myself...just make him disappear and then have him show up in a sallow grave 20-30 years from now when he is insignificant geopolitically.

As to Halliburton, please name another company that could have preformed the services Halliburton preformed. Personally, I was happy to see their chow halls get erected once we started phase four ops. Finally, we could get good meals, showers etc... The truth is that no other companies exist with Halliburton’s capability.

Many other companies could put up the facilities that haliburton did, but they still didnt need to price gouge the shit out of the US people...

Name a few

I disagree. He is a major financier and organizer of terrorist activities. As well as a figure that attracts more members. With him out of the picture, El'quida will be far less able to conduct their operations.

We have been giving him the "Che Treatment" for a long time (part of it is Clinton's **** up). And see where that lead to?


I'm sure Northrop Grumen, Lockheed Martin, or some other PMC that I'm not aware of could have managed.

Che was put in a hole. Clinton never gave Osama the Che treatment. Osama is now on the run and ineffective at supplying the things you mention. He is a non player now. The bank rollers all live in Iran now.

Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin don’t have ANY personnel support capability. Those two might be able to supply plane captains and civilian mechanics...oh that’s right they already do:dome:

As a mild supporter of the action in Iraq (I have some serious reservations about the odds of success due to factors outside Iraq), I have to say that Lothar seems to be responding quite politely compared to the level of invective directed at him.

Are there illegal actions happening in the military activity in Iraq? Well, I can just about guarantee it. However, that is due to my belief that the only way to ensure that there is no illegal activity is to have no human present (I have yet to meet a human who hasn't committed an illegal activity). The more people you get involved, the more likely you are to have some yahoo do something really bad such as killing innocent civilians or such. Does that condemn the whole action? No. Very good efforts are being made to keep human suffering to a minimum by the coalition forces all in the attempt to help stabilize a country and provide a better (more representative of the locals and providing more peace and prosperity) government.

Humans are a twisted race when taken as a statistical whole, and only slowly do we improve. Unfortunately, I believe that progress is only made by application of force. People do not generally respect anything but force. Sometimes you can get away with diplomatic means, but generally, diplomatic successes come from prior uses of more naked force.

BTW, force can be economic, military or informational. But I always mean an externally imposed force that is always resented by those receiving it (even if it helps them).

I believe that the US as a whole is dedicated to fair and legal actions, in spite of the actions of the few. It is not a question of whether horrible things will happen in a war; war is the ideal breeding ground for horror. The better question is whether the US should try to save Iraq from itself and from others all too eager to feed on its economic flesh (read about the profusion of corruption present in "Food for Oil" program run by France and Germany).

Are we doing it for economic reason? The US is losing money in this "deal".

Are we doing it for power? I don't know anyone who wants to annex Iraq or even stay near it any longer than it takes to get them stable.

Oh, I forget. We just want to enrich Halliburton and related companies while killing innocent civilians and spouting false propaganda.

Sheeze. All the evil neocons that I know of support prosecution of anything that is wrong while still continuing the effort to help Iraq.

I for one appreciate being able to read your comments: your point of view is as direct and honest as it can be (politics aside ;) ).

Thanks! I think everyone spins a little but I try very hard to be intellectually honest.

NO!


YOU have such a biased and distorted view YOU can't pause to consider any possible "truth" than what you choose to believe.

But such is all to often the case with the ultra lib mind set. And your, and milabiou's, abuse of a man who's been there on the ground in Iraq is dispicable. You've no back up to your chosen beliefs (The link to the UN was a sad & weak attempt at any real support of your position.) you are posting yet rail away aginst those who do. Which is the only way you can dismiss the reporting of the Marine shooting of that wounded Iraqi, yet claim our news is all censored.

america is in trouble... :shrug: :(

What's new?

and who is not ?
France ??

Comments like this are why I think every American once they turn 18 should be required to live in a third world dictatorship for a year.

no, they should be required to support themselves in a third world dictatorship for a year
and they should not have a vote until having spent 3 yrs service in some fashion
men and women - no service, no vote