The hunting of innocent civilians for sport may be news to those people who only look at the pictures*.
Or perhaps, it gets more coverage here because we are closer Ft Lewis.
The prosecution of the soldiers involved has been news for months and their crimes have been detailed in prose as gruesome (or more) as the photos.
To anyone who thinks, this just happens in wars, I want to say "Fuck You!".
Nice way to support our troops. Tell them you think they are cold blood murders who do it for sport. Fuck you.
* I know that's not you Luck.
When was the last US war that something like this didn't happen?
I suppose it doesn't matter much to you or you'd do your own research.
I don't recall these sorts of things happening during the 1st Iraq war or in Bosnia. Do you?
It was more of a rhetorical question, sorry to confuse you.
Maybe you're right about Iraq I, but just because I don't remember anything off the top of my head does not mean that something didn't happen. But, for the sake of argument I'll give you Iraq I.
Bosnia? LOL! Sorry. How many civilians died due to the US air attacks? I also recall the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy during Bosnia, because of "faulty maps".
That leaves Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq II, WWII, WWI, Civil, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Revolutionary War, etc. These "sorts of things" happened in all of those wars, but I suppose it doesn't matter much to you, since it totally contradicts your "fuck you" diatribe.
The hunting of innocent civilians for sport may be news to those people who only look at the pictures*.
Or perhaps, it gets more coverage here because we are closer Ft Lewis.
The prosecution of the soldiers involved has been news for months and their crimes have been detailed in prose as gruesome (or more) as the photos.
To anyone who thinks, this just happens in wars, I want to say "Fuck You!".
Nice way to support our troops. Tell them you think they are cold blood murders who do it for sport. Fuck you.
* I know that's not you Luck.
When was the last US war that something like this didn't happen?
I suppose it doesn't matter much to you or you'd do your own research.
I don't recall these sorts of things happening during the 1st Iraq war or in Bosnia. Do you?
It was more of a rhetorical question, sorry to confuse you.
Maybe you're right about Iraq I, but just because I don't remember anything off the top of my head does not mean that something didn't happen. But, for the sake of argument I'll give you Iraq I.
Bosnia? LOL! Sorry. How many civilians died due to the US air attacks? I also recall the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy during Bosnia, because of "faulty maps".
That leaves Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq II, WWII, WWI, Civil, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Revolutionary War, etc. These "sorts of things" happened in all of those wars, but I suppose it doesn't matter much to you, since it totally contradicts your "fuck you" diatribe.
Yeah, this stuff doesn't "just happen in war".
1. The "fuck you diatribe" wasn't mine.
2. The "sorts of things" being discussed was the deliberate killing of civilians by the five arrested soldiers.
3. Try to follow along.
I'm also not familiar with atrocities against civilians by American troops during the Revolutionary War, but perhaps you are.
I'm not sure if we are all talking about the same thing here.
What I and Bob and Luck are talking about are war crimes.
What other people seem to be talking about is the inadvertent civilian deaths that occur during war.
I would love the No Fly Zone to be something as simple as stopping Gaddafis air crafts from flying.
France and US hand in hand peacefully patrolling the skies over Libya, while protesters over throw Gaddafi in a bloodless revolution and establish paradise in Africa.
That is not what is happening, or going to happen.
What about people protesting for democracy and being beat, killed and imprisoned in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq? I support them all. I wish our State Dept supported them all. But the US military has no business there.
Nothing good has come from this. I doubt if any thing good will come from this.
I would love the No Fly Zone to be something as simple as stopping Gaddafis air crafts from flying.
France and US hand in hand peacefully patrolling the skies over Libya, while protesters over throw Gaddafi in a bloodless revolution and establish paradise in Africa.
That is not what is happening, or going to happen.
What about people protesting for democracy and being beat, killed and imprisoned in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq? I support them all. I wish our State Dept supported them all. But the US military has no business there.
Nothing good has come from this. I doubt if any thing good will come from this.
Gaddafi's anti-aircraft missile sites had to be taken out before the skies could be peacefully patrolled. Sec. Gates made that pretty clear going in.
I would love the No Fly Zone to be something as simple as stopping Gaddafis air crafts from flying.
France and US hand in hand peacefully patrolling the skies over Libya, while protesters over throw Gaddafi in a bloodless revolution and establish paradise in Africa.
That is not what is happening, or going to happen.
What about people protesting for democracy and being beat, killed and imprisoned in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq? I support them all. I wish our State Dept supported them all. But the US military has no business there.
Nothing good has come from this. I doubt if any thing good will come from this.
Gaddafi's anti-aircraft missile sites had to be taken out before the skies could be peacefully patrolled. Sec. Gates made that pretty clear going in.
True and true.
Gates said that establishing a no fly zone would require going to war. I hope no one doubts that we are now at war in Libya.
1. The "fuck you diatribe" wasn't mine.
2. The "sorts of things" being discussed was the deliberate killing of civilians by the five arrested soldiers.
3. Try to follow along.
I'm also not familiar with atrocities against civilians by American troops during the Revolutionary War, but perhaps you are.
1. Ok, my bad.
2. I understand that.
3. Fair enough.
You also don't seem to think that US soldiers commited atrocities in Bosnia and Iraq I, so it doesn't suprise me that you are unware of the Revolutionary War.
1. The "fuck you diatribe" wasn't mine.
2. The "sorts of things" being discussed was the deliberate killing of civilians by the five arrested soldiers.
3. Try to follow along.
I'm also not familiar with atrocities against civilians by American troops during the Revolutionary War, but perhaps you are.
1. Ok, my bad.
2. I understand that.
3. Fair enough.
You also don't seem to think that US soldiers commited atrocities in Bosnia and Iraq I, so it doesn't suprise me that you are unware of the Revolutionary War.
Like I said, perhaps you are.
If you'd care to share your knowledge I'd love to hear about it.
I would love the No Fly Zone to be something as simple as stopping Gaddafis air crafts from flying.
France and US hand in hand peacefully patrolling the skies over Libya, while protesters over throw Gaddafi in a bloodless revolution and establish paradise in Africa.
That is not what is happening, or going to happen.
What about people protesting for democracy and being beat, killed and imprisoned in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq? I support them all. I wish our State Dept supported them all. But the US military has no business there.
Nothing good has come from this. I doubt if any thing good will come from this.
Gaddafi's anti-aircraft missile sites had to be taken out before the skies could be peacefully patrolled. Sec. Gates made that pretty clear going in.
True and true.
Gates said that establishing a no fly zone would require going to war. I hope no one doubts that we are now at war in Libya.
Obama is already trying to punt this off to somebody else but, surprise surprise, nobody's there to catch that grenade.
In order for NATO to take over, all 28 countries would have to vote to do so - good luck!
And we've already spent close to half a billion dollars to accomplish.... well, there's some disagreement about that. Obama says Khadafi must go, but members of congress and the military say that's not necessary. Maybe they'll actually get together discuss the matter at some point.
To anyone who thinks, this just happens in wars, I want to say "Fuck You!".
Nice way to support our troops. Tell them you think they are cold blood murders who do it for sport. Fuck you.
I want to apologize for this post.
You are all free to your opinions and my "fuck you" was uncalled for.
That people are ok with this kind of thing...
That people think that this kind of thing is just human nature...
That people think this is no different than any other war deaths...
infuriates me.
I find that lackadaisical attitude toward human life and cold blooded meaningless murder repugnant.
But if that is your opinion, I will try, in the future, to respectful of it.
I apologize to everyone for lowering the level of discourse.
Has anyone considered how Gadhafi is fucking crazy and might return to aiding and funding terrorist acts if push comes to shove with his hold on power? He has large amounts of money and had operatives who were connected and "good" at terrorist attacks.
Most of these are really lame and easily dismantled.
But not by you. That would require making an argument instead of just stating your usual infallible conclusion.
By "most," you're admitting to some being possibly valid, of course.
I think the first six on the list are compelling:
"1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres."
It's entirely possible that this will end up as a disaster, but it's ridiculous to equate it with the invasion of Iraq.
Most of these are really lame and easily dismantled.
But not by you. That would require making an argument instead of just stating your usual infallible conclusion.
By "most," you're admitting to some being possibly valid, of course.
I think the first six on the list are compelling:
"1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres."
It's entirely possible that this will end up as a disaster, but it's ridiculous to equate it with the invasion of Iraq.
#1 - The UN lost all credibility years ago - they are not a legitimate arbiter of international affairs. Libya was a member of the Human Rights Council.
#2 - Anybody trying anything like this in Iraq was immediately arrested/tortured/executed - sort of puts a damper on things.
#4 - So What? Since when do we take orders from The Arab League?
#5 - That just means that this will go on and on with no clear resolution/objective. Are we removing Qaddafi or not? Because if he stays in he will execute anyone even suspected of participating in this uprising.
#6 - Again, so what? Totally irrelevant to the current situation.
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
Six Libyan villagers are recovering in hospital after being shot by American soldiers coming in to rescue the U.S. pilots whose plane crash-landed in a field.
The helicopter strafed the ground as it landed in a field outside Benghazi beside the downed U.S. Air Force F-15E Eagle which ran into trouble during bombing raid last night.
And a handful of locals who had come to greet the pilots were hit ??? among them a young boy who may have to have a leg amputated because of injuries caused by a bullet wound.
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
Comments
It was more of a rhetorical question, sorry to confuse you.
Maybe you're right about Iraq I, but just because I don't remember anything off the top of my head does not mean that something didn't happen. But, for the sake of argument I'll give you Iraq I.
Bosnia? LOL! Sorry. How many civilians died due to the US air attacks? I also recall the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy during Bosnia, because of "faulty maps".
That leaves Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq II, WWII, WWI, Civil, War of 1812, Spanish-American War, Revolutionary War, etc. These "sorts of things" happened in all of those wars, but I suppose it doesn't matter much to you, since it totally contradicts your "fuck you" diatribe.
Yeah, this stuff doesn't "just happen in war".
1. The "fuck you diatribe" wasn't mine.
2. The "sorts of things" being discussed was the deliberate killing of civilians by the five arrested soldiers.
3. Try to follow along.
I'm also not familiar with atrocities against civilians by American troops during the Revolutionary War, but perhaps you are.
What I and Bob and Luck are talking about are war crimes.
What other people seem to be talking about is the inadvertent civilian deaths that occur during war.
Here is an article from last September about the crimes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers
The current approach is directionless meddling with no definitive objective and nobody clearly in charge.
This is close to the worst possible response.
France and US hand in hand peacefully patrolling the skies over Libya, while protesters over throw Gaddafi in a bloodless revolution and establish paradise in Africa.
That is not what is happening, or going to happen.
What about people protesting for democracy and being beat, killed and imprisoned in Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq? I support them all. I wish our State Dept supported them all. But the US military has no business there.
Nothing good has come from this. I doubt if any thing good will come from this.
True and true.
Gates said that establishing a no fly zone would require going to war. I hope no one doubts that we are now at war in Libya.
1. Ok, my bad.
2. I understand that.
3. Fair enough.
You also don't seem to think that US soldiers commited atrocities in Bosnia and Iraq I, so it doesn't suprise me that you are unware of the Revolutionary War.
Like I said, perhaps you are.
If you'd care to share your knowledge I'd love to hear about it.
If not, well, I've seen that act before.
Obama is already trying to punt this off to somebody else but, surprise surprise, nobody's there to catch that grenade.
In order for NATO to take over, all 28 countries would have to vote to do so - good luck!
And we've already spent close to half a billion dollars to accomplish.... well, there's some disagreement about that. Obama says Khadafi must go, but members of congress and the military say that's not necessary. Maybe they'll actually get together discuss the matter at some point.
He certainly said that he would "Impeach any President who starts a war against a nation that didn???t attack us" in 2007
How can you tell if a politician is lying??
Punchline: __________________________
.
Quite a few possibilities.
As predictable as the hypocrisy is, it is still infuriating.
I've seen this movie before!
I want to apologize for this post.
You are all free to your opinions and my "fuck you" was uncalled for.
That people are ok with this kind of thing...
That people think that this kind of thing is just human nature...
That people think this is no different than any other war deaths...
infuriates me.
I find that lackadaisical attitude toward human life and cold blooded meaningless murder repugnant.
But if that is your opinion, I will try, in the future, to respectful of it.
I apologize to everyone for lowering the level of discourse.
Most of these are really lame and easily dismantled.
b/w
Just because it's not like Iraq (or Viet Nam or wherever) doesn't mean it's a good idea.
But not by you. That would require making an argument instead of just stating your usual infallible conclusion.
By "most," you're admitting to some being possibly valid, of course.
I think the first six on the list are compelling:
"1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres."
It's entirely possible that this will end up as a disaster, but it's ridiculous to equate it with the invasion of Iraq.
#1 - The UN lost all credibility years ago - they are not a legitimate arbiter of international affairs. Libya was a member of the Human Rights Council.
#2 - Anybody trying anything like this in Iraq was immediately arrested/tortured/executed - sort of puts a damper on things.
#3 - The Kurds probably feel differently
#4 - So What? Since when do we take orders from The Arab League?
#5 - That just means that this will go on and on with no clear resolution/objective. Are we removing Qaddafi or not? Because if he stays in he will execute anyone even suspected of participating in this uprising.
#6 - Again, so what? Totally irrelevant to the current situation.
#7 - Obama is going to 'turn it over' to allies - Oh really? I don't see anybody agreeing to take this on. What's the basis for this statement?
Who equated it with the invasion of Iraq?
Step one: shut off water supply
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm
"Six vessels were involved the first day, and Canada's Brig. General Pierre St. Amand said 16 ships have been offered by NATO members. Five are from Turkey, the organization's sole Muslim member."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/nato-libya-intervention_n_839819.html
I guess this doesn't count because we don't take orders from Turks or they've lost all moral credibility or "so what" or something.
Sorry for intruding with something as meaningless as a fact.
More here:
http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2011-03-23-Libya-Diplomacy/id-507a934829eb4ad0b7b42e24ad76a8d3
I guess you missed the part where nobody has agreed to take over - they've just agreed to talk about it.
Having your boat cruise back and forth off the coast isn't quite the same thing.
28 different countries will have to agree on any plan - maybe they'll have a little love-in over there, but I doubt it.
And if it happens you'll find some reason to dismiss that, too.
I'll wait and see what they actually accomplish.
Right now there's a war with no one in charge and no specific goal, which is an abysmal start.