Charity: US troops stormed through Afghan hospital

[Alamuti Lotus]

Source: AP

KABUL – A Swedish charity accused American troops Monday of storming through a hospital in central Afghanistan, breaking down doors and tying up staff in a search for militants. The U.S. military said it was investigating.

The allegation that soldiers violated the neutrality of a medical facility follows the reported deaths of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike in the country's north last week.

The U.S. troops came to the hospital looking for Taliban insurgents late at night last Wednesday, Fange said. He said they kicked in doors, tied up four hospital employees and two family members of patients, and forced patients out of beds during their search.

When they left two hours later, the unit ordered hospital staff to inform coalition forces if any wounded militants were admitted, and the military would decide if they could be treated, Fange said.

The staff refused, he said. "That would put our staff at risk and make the hospital a target."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vssmith]

2. Just maybe we are doing more harm than good over there

[HEyHEY]

23. I'd say no

I'm sure lots of bad things are going on.... but when you look at it ten years ago...

[L0oniX]

38. Yes we are causing more harm than good. We are infidels in their Islamic country.

They have a right to their religion just as much as we do and their religion dictates that we not be in their country. Add to that all the collateral deaths we have caused and you have a mechanism for creating new terrorists who hate us. The problem is that our military is in Islamic countries.

[BOG PERSON]

51. Yes, that's it

Their "religion" is what compels them to resist a foreign occupation :eyes:

[BunkerHill24]

3. What a disgrace!

:kick:

[dotymed]

6. PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID

That he was going to "improve our image abroad."
Obviously, except for Fascists, this is doing just the
opposite. We MUST immediately withdraw from Iraq and
Afghanistan. There is no reason for us to still be there. The
only impact we will have is negative and we need the money
back at home. America must stop these continual wars. They are
only meant to control American citizens and keep them scared.
When (if ever) will President Obama, stop the "bush
Doctrine?" Please, if any of your speeches were more than
just rhetoric, President Obama, call on your supporters, (they
were and still could be, the majority of Americans), to
peacefully take to the streets and demand "real
(positive) change." Tell us that you have our backs and
we will have yours. Together we can overthrow the
Corporo-Fascists who run this government, once and for all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. +1

:thumbsup:

[NecklyTyler]

5. Winning the hearts and minds of the people

We can't just continue Bush's war by being the biggest bullies around. We either win the war through humanitarian means, or get the FV<K out.

[irislake]

7. Support our troops

[L0oniX]

39. pffft

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them!

– Albert Einstein

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." -- Henry Kissinger

“Blind obedience to authority is the enemy of the truth.” Albert Einstein

[BobRossi]

8. Not like 'Nam, it's worse.

This 'war' is going to make 'Nam look like a cakewalk before it's over.
It is imposible to 'win' this thing.

[PeaceDreamer]

48. Obama's war in Afghanistan is a disaster

You're right, this war will be worse than Vietnam. This escalation is just the beginning.

[1776Forever]

9. Being a Mother of 2 who have served let's remember that if this did happen who ordered it!

I am proud of our troops who are putting their lives at risk but I am very disappointed right now in the leadership that would have ordered this! Who is giving this direction? I have a family member who may be going over next year to help rebuild Afghanistan and this does not look good for any of our future humanitarian efforts! If anyone has information on which branch this was and who ordered this action please post! I wonder if it was a "civilian contractor" that was involved?

[shadowknows69]

17. How about the CIC is responsible for the troops actions.

The fuckin buck stops there.

[rabs]

22. Not contractors, but troops from the Army

Article says the troops were from the 10th Mountain Division based at Fort Drum, N.Y.
------------------
On Monday, the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan said the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division forced their way into the charity's hospital without permission to look for insurgents in Wardak province, southwest of Kabul.
------------------------------

I would imagine that the officer(s) who gave the order to search the hospital is/are in hot water about now after the negative publicity in Sweden. Doubt we will ever know whether any action was taken.
--------------
The Division has been taking heavy casualties in Afghanistan recently:

Aug. 28, 2009
10th Mountain Division Soldier killed in Afghanistan
FORT DRUM, NY -- A 10th Mountain Division Soldier from Fort Drum was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle Aug. 28 in Logar province, Afghanistan. The Fort Drum Soldier killed is Spc. Abraham S. Wheeler III, 22, of Columbia, SC.
--------------
Aug. 22, 2009
10th Mountain Division Soldier dies after roll-over incident in Afghanistan
FORT DRUM, NY -- A 10th Mountain Division Soldier from Fort Drum died of injuries sustained during a vehicle roll-over on Aug. 22 in Logar province, Afghanistan. The Fort Drum Soldier who died is Cpl. Darby T. Morin, 25, of Victoria, Canada. Cpl. Morin served as a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear specialist with the 1st Battalion, 32nd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry).
-----------------
Aug. 20, 2009
10th Mountain Division Soldier killed in Afghanistan
FORT DRUM, NY -- A 10th Mountain Division Soldier from Fort Drum was killed by indirect fire Aug. 20 in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. The Fort Drum Soldier killed is Pfc. Brian M. Wolverton, 21, of Oak Park, Calif.
------------------
Aug. 20, 2009
10th Mountain Division Soldier killed by IED attack in Afghanistan
FORT DRUM, NY -- A 10th Mountain Division Soldier from Fort Drum was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle Aug. 20 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. The Fort Drum Soldier killed is Spec. Justin R. Pellerin, 21, of Boscawen, N.H.
-----------------------
Aug. 7, 2009
10th Mountain Division Soldier killed in Afghanistan
FORT DRUM, NY -- A 10th Mountain Division Soldier from Fort Drum was killed Aug. 7 in Wardak Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. The Fort Drum Soldier killed is Sgt. Jerry R. Evans Jr., 23, of Eufaula, Ala.

-----------------
May your family member be safe if he/she goes.

[1776Forever]

55. Thank you for your post. I can see where this is a touchy situation right now with those troops.

We can only hope that their leadership does take this seriously and mounts a recourse that leads us to the peaceful solution that I know President Obama would like to see in this war torn country.

:hi:

[rabs]

61. You're welcome and here is the Swedish Committee report on the intrusion

Your hunch was correct, the hospital was invaded and used in July by armed civilian contractors as a shelter during a firefight with insurgents in which the contractors abused staff and damaged hospital property. (Assume that by international law, using a civilian hospital to take cover during a battle is a major no-no. Will look around to see whether the contractors were from the U.S. or other countries.)

------------
Swedish Committee for Afghanistan

International military violently entered SCA Hospital in Wardak
PRESS RELEASE, Kabul, September 6, 2009
On Wednesday evening September 2 at 10 pm coalition vehicles drove up at SCA’s Hospital in Shaniz, Wardak province along the main highway from Kabul to Ghazni. They entered the hospital compound, reportedly without giving any reason or justification for entering the hospital compound. They searched all rooms, even bathrooms, male and female wards. Rooms that were locked were forcefully entered and the doors of the malnutrition ward and the ultrasound ward were broken by force to gain entry. Upon entering the hospital they tied up four employees and two family members of patients at the hospital. SCA staffs as well as patients (even those in beds) were forced out of rooms/wards throughout the search.

Snip:
The hospital has faced a further intrusion on 13 July, when private security guards escorting a convoy came under attack from insurgents and sought shelter/treatment in a very aggressive manner in the hospital and proceeded to assault staff and damage property.

Complete report and contact information:

http://www.swedishcommittee.org/archive/articles/press/2009/wpoIMF/

Background on SCA; it has been in Afghanistan since the early 1980s.

http://www.swedishcommittee.org/sca/index.html

and :hi: back ...

[debbierlus]

25. At some point, the individuals who execute the orders must take some responsibility

Look at Nazi Germany...

They were 'just following orders'....

I can't be proud of our troops for the actions in Iraq & Afghanistan because they have killed untold numbers of innocent people for no purpose other then corporate greed.

If troops from another country came here and executed such horrors, would you hold them blameless for 'just following orders'...

There is a choice, undoubtedly very hard. But, moral men and women should lay down arms in rebellion before killing in the name of greed and empire.

Yes, those who ordered it must be held to the strongest account. But, the responsibility lies with those who execute murder, as well.

[1776Forever]

56. Let's make sure we understand no one was killed here. It was a very bad call anyway you look at it.

But when you are in a war torn country like this things happen and it is up to the leadership to keep it in perspective.

[atreides1]

30. Following an illegal order is still illegal

Who ordered it is the main problem, but those who obeyed the order share in the responsibility.

From the Geneva Conventions

Art. 18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

Art. 20. Persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases shall be respected and protected.


We can all sit here and point fingers at the leadership because it makes us feel better. But the truth of the matter is that we ignore the fact that those obeying these orders, some which may violate the Conventions, are just as culpable as those issuing them.

[1776Forever]

57. That is your call. I read the reports of this company being hit hard in the last weeks.

They need direction in this area also and we don't know the entire story and I think it will be brought out at a later date. I did not say that those who did this were without blame, but I think that the leadership needs to look at their orders and who gave this direction to see if they can turn this kind of action around in the future!

[webrockk]

10. war?

With civilian populations intermingled with, and supportive of
combatants, modern wars on terrorism have seemingly become
police actions, more reliant on urban "law
enforcement" tactics than traditional "take the
hill" techniques. Additionally, with no clear directives,
goals, vague rules of engagement, soldiers that fear
prosecution, and no clear definition of victory, we've bogged
ourselves down in unwinable "politically correct"
conflicts.  Get the media's prying eyes out, turn our
commanders, advanced equipment and troops loose, get this
thing finished, and get out...and NEVER again enter into
another military conflict without a clear mission statement
and exit strategy.

[mckara]

11. What Would You Do? Give Safe Haven to the Insurgents?

Many of us on DU are incredibly naive!

[izquierdista]

15. Especially all the apologists for the military

[mckara]

18. An Easy Call for Those 7,000 Miles Away From Danger!

And for those who never worn a uniform.

[izquierdista]

44. They should ALL be 7000 miles from danger

And the less people in uniform the better. Do you know the 2 countries who have no standing army?

[LanternWaste]

79. Would that it were a simple...

Would that it were a simple, binary equation with merely two valid answers. But, as in life, more answers exist that are dreamed of in our philosophies...

[Tempest]

19. Talk about naive

Hospitals are protected from this kind of action by international law.

Article 14 of the Geneva Conventions specifically.


Apparently you side with Bush when it comes to the conventions.

[umaine79]

41. Obama is a continuation of Bush

"Apparently you side with Bush when it comes to the conventions". Obama is Commander in Chief now not Bush. This is not what we expected when we elected him. This is bullshit.

[Tempest]

42. Not exactly

Whenever these kinds of actions come to light, Obama has put a stop to them.

[PeaceDreamer]

49. Obama =Bush

Nope, Obama is continuing Bush's policies and they will have the same drastic effect. Obama hasn't put a stop to anything.

[HEyHEY]

86. Well, that is maybe because of the state of the world and massive complications

I know its hard for you to grasp, but your nation isn't the only one involved in this war. ANd you can't just fuck off back to the homeland and not expect the anti-US sentiment to fester and explode again. That's what happened the first time. There is a solution to this, but it sure as shit isn't as easy as you think.

[14thColony]

54. Yes

We are a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions, and this act was in violation of those same conventions which WE supported, WE signed, and WE badgered much of the rest of the world into signing (and rightfully so) in 1949. We don't get a free pass on the Laws of War just because we find them temporarily inconvenient.

[mckara]

59. Their Are No Rules in War

We don't live in a Pollyanna world, go to war and see for yourself. Legalistic jargon makes diplomats and idealists feel good about themselves. Try fighting for your life and the lives of your friends, and then tell me about the Geneva Conventions.

[happyslug]

60. You go to war for an OBJECTIVE, anything that interferes with that OBJECTIVE is punished

In Afghanistan what is our objective? One of the old jokes about Vietnam was the military objective was NOT to lose the war in this administration. Winning was NOT possible given that the Majority of the people of Vietnam supported the Communists (Yes, 10-20% of the population supported the US, but you would have that much support for an invading army in the US, who would be the 10-20% would vary depending on who was invading and why but you will still have that 10-20% who are mainly looking out for themselves and see the invasion as an opportunity).

The same set of facts are occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. The majority of the population oppose the US presence and thus support the insurgents. We have found the 10-20% who support us, for they see that support as a way to improve themselves (In Iraq this has been the Shiites, who support Iran more then the US, but since they opposed Saddam now support the US AND Iran, over the last two years the Sunni has come to support the US, but that support came at the price of being paid off, they still oppose the US presence but prefer the money we are paying them more). Given the Money from the Oil Fields are available to buy not only the Shiite and Sunni but the Kurds Iraq has settled down, but only for a time period, when we have to cut back the money it will blow up again.

In Afghanistan there is no oil money. Furthermore given that Afghanistan is more a geographical expression then a real nation it is hard to figure out who is fighting for what. Most Afghans are fighting NOT for Afghanistan but the traditional area their tribe control within the country AND maybe some additional territory near by. Thus what is the US Mission? The Taliban want to return to what it was under their rule, the Punsthan looking to them to settle disputes between the tribes but otherwise staying out of the tribes business. Most Pusthan's want a Punsthan than as the person who holds this power but refuse to accept the present president of Afghanistan as anything more then a US puppet.

Thus the US mission has become how to keep the present President (Or maybe his "opponent" another opportunist) in office while the Majority of the people would vote him out and vote in the Taliban (and the vote for the Taliban would be more a vote to get the US out then any real support for the Taliban). Given that political situation what is the US Mission? The mission appears to get the people of Afghanistan to stop supporting the Taliban and to support the Afghan government we are supporting.

Now if the US Mission was to defeat the Taliban, the US would have to occupy the entire country AND close off the borders. That would require more troops then we are presently willing to commit (i.e. 1/2 million men and with present enlistment rates that can only be achieved with a draft, something NO ONE in Congress will vote for at the present time). You have to have at least a Squad of Soldiers in every Village, searching every vehicle (including donkey carts). This mission would include detaining anyone who may be a Taliban, blocking ANY meetings except meetings supporting our puppet in Kabul, and building up any local support for our puppet. Once the Government we support has something like 50% of the population support, then, and only then would we be able to drive out and destroy the Taliban. Notice it requires more troops then we are willing to commit and maybe more troops then we could raise. Please note Pakistan had preferred to leave its Pusthan's in control of their part of Pakistan. While considered part of Pakistan, the Central Pakistan government even had to ask the locals for permission to do military missions in those areas till the last two years (and while asking permission has technically stopped, Control by the Central Government of Pakistan over the Mountains is weak at best, and probably non-existent as it has been since British colonial days).

The US is in an impossible situation. The US forces can NOT defeat the Taliban in military combat (any such victory requires political and economic forces, both of which the US is weak when in comes in Afghanistan). The Taliban is to weak militarily to drive out the US, but the US is to weak to replace them as to political control over most of Afghanistan. We can drive out the Taliban from one area, the Taliban then leave the area or return to being farmers or herders. When the US leaves an area, the Taliban either returns OR the Taliban cease being farmers and herders and become political and military leaders of the area. This is what happened in Vietnam, first with the French in 1945-1054 and then with the US between 1964 and 1975 (and in between with the South Vietnam Government we installed).

In some ways this happened to US Forces in Nicaragua and Haiti in the 1920s and early 1930s. The US ended up withdrawing from both Countries and then providing aid to our former "Allies" till they could take over and rule with a brutal fist for the next several decades. The key was the US had to withdraw, with the US withdraw our "Allies" could appear to the people of those two nations as being natives NOT American puppets and win enough support from the natives to rule. As long as the US forces existed those natives allies of the US could NOT win enough support to defeat the Insurgents. Once the US withdrew but transferred most, if not all, of our military supplies to out former allies, the allies could defeat the insurgents Politically as while as Militarily (And the Political Victory was more important then any military victory when in came to both countries).

I point out Nicaragua and Haiti of the 1920s for both where long term occupation by US Forces, longer then out war in Afghanistan. In Nicaragua from 1912 till 1933 and in Haiti from 1915 to 1934.

Nicaragua:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm
http://countrystudies.us/nicaragua/10.htm

Haiti:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti

Thus the US mission for the last two years in Afghanistan is NOT to militarily defeat the Taliban but to feat the Taliban Politically. Sooner or later the US has to withdraw from Afghanistan, what the US claims is its mission is so vague that it is meaningless (Restoring Democracy means nothing to a country that never had it and if if had would vote in someone who oppose the US presence). Defeating the Taliban is also meaningless, the Taliban is more a political movement then a military one and unless you are willing to put soldiers into everyone's home you can NOT defeat a political movement by military means (You can defeat its ability to project power i.e. spread its message to other countries, but that is NOT what the Taliban wants, Al Queda wants to spread its message and the Taliban are allied with Al Queda but Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan NOT the entire Middle East, which Al Queda wants to do but our main enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban NOT Al Queda).

How do you defeat the Taliban? You have to provide the government we support enough military support so it is NOT defeated militarily, but then send in country building projects tied in with whoever ends up ruling Afghanistan (Notice that may be the Taliban if they have the support of over 50% of the population). These economic projects ties in the rulers with the projects and the people with the projects (and both with the US). Whoever is ruling (and it can be the Taliban) will sooner or later come to an accommodation with the US as to Al Queda (i.e. kick them out and give them no support) unless Al Queda gives the Taliban more support then we did (And that appears to be what Al Queda was doing just before the 9/11 attack). It will take years if not decades to get the rulers of Afghanistan to be no longer supportive of Al Queda, but to get to that level we have to first withdraw and see who wins the subsequent struggle for power and then provide that person aid so that he looks to the US for support NOT bin Laden.

A history of US Intervention, which mention the above two Interventions:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Now what has this to do with the actions of the US Soldiers in this Hospital? First, we are in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and Al Queda. To do so we need support NOT only from the natives but from anyone else who is trying to help the natives. Thus any violation of the Geneva Convention defeats what should be the US aims in Afghanistan and anyone who violates those aims MUST BE PUNISHED so such violations do NOT occur in the future. As I tried to explain above, what we need is support from the native population, more then the 10-20% any occupier can count on. We need more of a Majority. Now in Haiti and Nicaragua in the 1920s we found out the only way to get more support for our side was to withdraw our forces. In Afghanistan that would help, but given we are NOT withdrawing then our troops MUST follow the plan to "win" in Afghanistan. At present that plan is to get the natives on out side. Any act that is a violation of the Geneva Convention occurs to someone who has brothers, sons, daughters, Mothers and other relatives. All of these relatives will take that act as NOT an act of war but personal, increasing the opposition to not only the US occupation of Afghanistan BUT our allies among the natives themselves.

Right now ANY violation of the Geneva Convention is an act AGAINST the US Mission in Afghanistan and must be punished. We are NOT dealing with regular soldiers but civilians in opposition to the occupation. Such civilians in opposition was protected under the Geneva Convention and as such any act against them NOT military necessary is a violation of not only our law BUT the mission the US forces have at the present time, political defeat of the Taliban. Any thing that violates the mission to get the natives to stop supporting the Taliban MUST be punished, especially any violation of the Geneva Convention.

[14thColony]

62. It's people like you who make my job harder

Yes, there are rules to war. There are loads and loads of them, and they didn't start or end with the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Because there are laws of war, we got to try Japanese and German officers after WWII for violating them, and we hanged many of their sorry asses for what they did during that war. If there are no 'rules of war' as you so vehemently insist, then what the &$@#! did we try them for?! And I seem to recall Lt Calley got a sentence of life at hard labor for violating those non-existent rules of war during Vietnam.

The laws of war exist because the world got sick of the type of warfare seen in the European religious wars, when POWs were executed out of hand, cities were sacked, and innocent people got massacred as a matter of course. WE DO NOT WANT TO RETURN TO THOSE DAYS. You clearly do, but I would guess that's only because the US happens to be the dominant military power on earth right now, so I would surmise that you don't think you'll ever have to die by the sword that you're so eager to live by. But what goes around comes around my friend, and we will not always be the dominant military power. If we change the rules, then we need to be willing to live with them when we're not on top.

And by the way I am STILL in the US military, and served for over a year as a military adviser to the Afghan Army. So I HAVE been to war (more than once) and I HAVE seen for myself, and none of your bullshit changes my mind one iota. I would not hesitate to order the arrest of a soldier for violating LOAC. This is NOT something to fuck around with, and these guys godamned well knew that because they are required to attend yearly training on the laws of war, where hospitals are discussed a whole hell of a lot. (Isn't that funny? The DoD takes the time to train us at least once a year on something you purport doesn't even exist!)

The point you appear oblivious to is that the Moral High Ground is a VERY powerful weapon, one more likely to win a conflict than any other weapon in our arsenal. More powerful in its ability to actually GET THE JOB DONE than all our other weapons combined, in my opinion. But, while I'm sure you would not advocate dumping all our nukes into the ocean, you seem only too eager to jettison a far more powerful weapon that has in the past proven its worth in attaining victory. Why? Is it because victory without carnage isn't your kind of victory? In which case, I suggest you grow up. The real world isn't a video game or an action movie. After the war's over, we still have to deal with whoever it is we were just fighting, and that's a hell of a lot easier if we conducted the war in a moral and humanitarian way. Or we can conduct it the way you want to, which I can assure you will a) lose you the war and b) create far MORE enemies than we had going in. So which would you prefer?

[mckara]

77. In Addition to Being a Retired Naval Officer

I have a master's degree in military history. Where should we begin when discussing the Geneva Conventions and their effect on preventing military expediency in battles? Aerial bombing of civilian populations? Treatment of prisoners? Where have their rules made a difference in the conduct of warfare? Was WWII the end of genocide?

Military personnel who were tried after WWII and during the Vietnam War were essentially show trials for prosecuting war criminals from the losing side. Do you believe that Axis powers were the only ones committing atrocities during the war? Was "Bomber" Harris tried for firebombing German civilians? Were any Russians prosecuted for pillaging Eastern Europe? Was Truman prosecuted for dropping atomic weapons on Japan?

Lt. Calley and his company in Vietnam, were they the only Americans committing war crimes? How many other Americans were tried? More recently, will the Bush Administration be tried for torturing prisoners?

Now, I admire your enthusiasm, and I wish your idealism had more of a basis in reality, but other than the Geneva accords existing, behavior on battlefields have changed little since the advent of "Total War," and the concept of levée en masse. Philosophically speaking, haven't you realized that the term "rules of war" is an oxymoron?

When I was younger, we shared many of the same notions. Perhaps, time has made me more cynical than you. It's more likely a case of me having a realistic view of the world; my arguments can be defended with empirical and academic evidence. Stay safe as you serve!

[14thColony]

78. We are quite similar then

Also an officer, retiring next year, and I have a similar masters degree. Thanks for your well-reasoned response, by the way.

I have discovered the crux of our 'disagreement,' and find that in reality we have none. You're arguing for the world as it is, I'm arguing for the world as it should be -- I should have caught that from the beginning. We both, I think, agree there are pieces of paper and documents with lots of signatures that purport to govern war, and of course I completely agree with you that they've done scarce little to actually alleviate any suffering at all. Not the way it should be, but I'd be a fool to say it's not the way it is. Realism versus Idealism, to put it into terms of political theory.

Of course the Allies committed war crimes, and you've named the top ones, to which I could only add the firebombings of Japanese cities. At the same time, in my opinion we as a military must strive to try to play by the rules to the maximum extent possible, and deal harshly with wanton violations of LOAC. By turning a blind eye we run the risk of slowly over time degenerating into a latter-day Crusader army, pillaging as we go. It only takes a small leak to collapse a dike, given enough time. And in counter-insurgency warfare it is so absolutely critical to keep as much of the population as possible neutral - they'll probably never be on our side, but neutral means they're not on the insurgents' side either. And events like this, while piddling compared to Mi Lai or Dresden, represent another tiny crack in the dike. Right now, at least in my experience, the 'Afghans' (as if there was such a thing) see our being there in their best interest, and are still willing to give us a shot. God help us if they ever view us en masse as enemies and invaders. I'm sure you know from your studies how well invaders have historically fared in Afghanistan.

So I am somewhat Idealistic still, but with a Realistic view that the Idealism can help in some small part to lead to victory. At least it's a better road than the one that led the British to their last stand at the Khyber Pass in the 19th century.

Twenty years ago I'd have agreed with you from my misinterpretations of your original posts. Of course back then I was a flaming right-winger and religious nut. I thought people were supposed to get more conservative as they got older...?

Anyway, nice exchange with you and I wish you well. By the way, my dad was Navy.

[Bette Noir]

13. Way to win hearts and minds.

[bahrbearian]

14. Why would ours soldiers do that?

Isn't that why we hired Black Water, to do these type of crimes.

[OwnedByFerrets]

16. I thought we were supposed to be fighting terrorism, not

spreading it.:sarcasm: America is the biggest terrorist organization in existence.

[Honeycombe8]

20. America is not a terrorist organization. nt

[HEyHEY]

27. You're right, the USA is an exploitive imperialist, I wish people would get the jargon right

[Honeycombe8]

66. I don't know if it's exploitive, and while not as imperialistic as Great Britain,

I suppose in some sense America can be imperialistic, depending on who is in control.

But America is different from many other countries in that we change leaders and policies every few years.

America does not intentionally kill innocent people to make a point in further a cause, or to cause emotional and financial harm to others for the purpose of furthering a cause. That is what the Taliban do, what the IRA did, and other terrorist organizations. They quite openly admitted that was their purpose. (If you don't admit it, you're not a very good terrorist organization, since the whole point is the threat of MORE intentionally killing of innocent people unless they get their way.)

America hasn't conquered or colonized another country in quite a few years (that's what imperialistic empires do).

[HEyHEY]

67. Sorry, did you just come out from a cave?

What the hell do you call Iraq? What do you call years and years of abusing corrupt governments in South American to get what you want? America isn't exploitive? Jesus, man... COME ON.

[IndianaGreen]

83. Our friend is the finest product of our educational system

where an abundance of Kool-Aid is fed our kids to turn them into useful consumers, not critical thinkers.

[OwnedByFerrets]

71. Of course america didnt "intentionally" kill those

ONE MILLION innocent people in Iraq. They just accidentally got in the way of those bombs and bullets and white phospherous. Damned idiots. Dont they know enough to dodge those things. Sheesh.:eyes:

[drdtroit]

73. You're kidding, right? Forgot the sarcasm smiley? n/t

[OwnedByFerrets]

70. LOL Thanks

[L0oniX]

34. Yea right. I guess you can't put yourself in other peoples place and imagine what it's like.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Tell that to the Iraqis, or the Vietnamese

or the Salvadorans and Nicaraguans.

[Honeycombe8]

65. Um...you do know the Vietnamese love America, right? I repeat, America is not a terrorist

organization.

Terrorists intentionally kill innocent people for the express purpose of furthering a cause.

America is not a terrorist organization. It's wacko to say that, and as an independent thinker, I'm not falling for it.

[HEyHEY]

68. I was in Vietnam a month ago, and they do NOT love America

If they do, they have a funny way of showing it. Of course I guess maybe "Imperialist war-mongers" is a puppy-love term? Cause that's what you'll read on many a text referring to the USA in Hanoi.

[IndianaGreen]

81. Vietnamese are still being injured by unexploded American ordnance

The Vietnamese in Vietnam are glad we are gone!

Using Agent Orange was an act of terrorism. Murdering over a million of Vietnamese was a war crime.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Question: Should hospitals there be treating Taliban militants?

Or should they be turned away? Is there a clearcut way to determine if someone is a Taliban militant?

It's an ethical dilemma. You have a hospital to treat the sick and injured, in the midst of a war zone of sorts. Does the hospital have a duty to determine who is the enemy, and refuse to treat? Or does the hospital have a duty to treat everyone, knowing that some will be the enemy who will be returned to the streets to kill American troops and throw acid in young girls' faces?

I'm not sure the hospital staff would know for sure who is a Taliban warrior.

[HEyHEY]

24. Yeah, you turn away some militants and see how long your hospital lasts

[webrockk]

26. Therin lies the problem

And it has been a problem since the beginning. The taliban moves among the local population with no distinguishing traits...apparently this was addressed in the "war rooms", and law enforcement tactics were settled on as a way to combat it...ridiculous! At this late date, I see two options...cut losses and get out, or send in the bombers. We simply cannot continue this half hearted, ineffective strategy indefinitely

[HEyHEY]

29. Sorry, but the US, Canada, Britain and others went in an toppled a government

You can't leave until there's stability. That's the rules.

[L0oniX]

36. Question: Did the Taliban attack us on 9/11?

[Honeycombe8]

64. Yes. nt

[L0oniX]

69. Really? ...or did you forget the sarcasm?

So now Osama is the leader of the Taliban. I am sure that's what the tea baggers, becksters, limpballers and fux snews watchers think.

[drdtroit]

74. WRONG! n/t

[Honeycombe8]

75. You are misinformed. The hijackers/terrorists were all Talibani warriors...

trained by bin Laden in Afghanistan.

There is no card membership to the Taliban. The way you tell a Talibani? One way is...did he go to a Talibani terrorist training camp?

Bin Laden's group integrated with the Taliban.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Some were Egyptians, most were Saudis, but not one of them was Afghan

Time for you to change that channel in your TV.

Here is the CIA on the nationality of hijackers:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

85. Nor where they Pakistani either. nt

[drdtroit]

87. Who is misinformed? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

82. No! The 9-11 plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany

You need to review your theology.

[SunDrop23]

28. This should help the president's approval rating with the wingnuts...

They really like this kind of stuff...the military roughing up civilians and whatnot.

"Hell yeah bo we showed them terrorists"

(99% of the time, the person saying "we" has never served in the military)

[bahrbearian]

33. Its Bipartisan. Reaching across the aisle.

[pleah]

31. K&R

[Mari333]

32. thugs. same ole, same ole. nt

[oct2010]

35. This is the hospital/clinic that fired on Afghan/NATO troops as they approached due to a sellout tip

The allegation that soldiers violated the neutrality of a medical facility

I wonder what the Saudi charity NGO's have to say about the Swedish charity workers story?

oh wait.
Those types of records are not generslly made
:sarcasm:available

Wounded Taliban commander captured in Afghan clinic

snip
ISAF said Afghan forces were fired on as they approached the clinic and one of its service members was killed.

The provincial governor's spokesman, Hamidullah Zwak, said the commander was captured and 12 of his fighters killed.

snip
http://news.stv.tv/world/118908-wounded-taliban-commander-captured-in-afghan-clinic/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4034767

imo, the taliban should launch a fact finding investigation to get at and release a real unbiased report to the story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4034767#4035321

[Mari333]

37. we shouldnt even be there,

end both occupations NOW.

[L0oniX]

40. +1 Amen

[Joanne98]

43. They're probably mad because they're giving away free health care!

The Swedes are SOCIALISTS after all.

[chrisa]

45. Our military is a nightmare.

Full of commanders and soldiers who don't care about the ROE or honor, and only want to act like it's all one big military shooting game. The other 50% of the military is comprised of roid-rage contractors who have a machismo attitude, and only cause terror on civilians who are only unlucky enough to live there.

There's good units in the military, but others are just a jumbled mess. Reform is badly needed.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Our involvement in Afghanistan will gain us nothing but more bodybags

This war must end, and it must end now!

[PeaceDreamer]

50. Deaths will add up

Wait till you start seeing several hundred troops dead a month. The news is ignoring what is happening there.

[harmonicon]

47. stay classy, USA (nt)

[Vidar]

53. They're Obama's thugs now.

[Arctic Dave]

58. My crystal ball says, "court martial".

I see an LT. in some deep shit.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

63. It's bad if the troops were just fishing for Talibans

But if they were reacting to direct fire from the hospital, then I support the action.

Hopefully, an investigation will provide some answers.

Of course, the solution is simple. Just get the hell out of there. Just leave.

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

72. and it's all about an oil pipeline

[CrawlingChaos]

76. damn straight....oh, and poppies too (n/t)

[Algorem]

80. are they being trained by the idf ?