Gen. David Petraeus is a war criminal

[NNN0LHI]

[bdamomma]

1. he is just another flea on the windshield of * and cheney

[ProSense]

2. Are the soldiers in Iraq who still believe they can help war criminals too?

Petraeus didn't start the war. Bush did!

People just go over friggin top!

[madokie]

3. beTreyUS wants to continue to kill innocent Iraqi's

after all aren't they, the Iraqi all innocent, didn't we invade and aren't we occupiers, doesn't bushco* want Iraqi natural resources
and is willing to keep killing them until he gets it??????? anyways have a great day

[bryant69]

6. That's not how you spell BeTray

If you are going to use childish insults, you should spell them correctly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[madokie]

7. in your world maybe but not in mine

[Kelly Rupert]

59. You aren't allowed to make up your own spellings.

It isn't betrey. It's betray.

[me b zola]

81. You aren't allowed to act as though you are somebody's mother

It feels pretty messed up for someone to pretend as though they have the authority to tell you what is or isn't allowed, doesn't it?

[bryant69]

87. I don't know what you are talking about

But we tell each other what to do, what to say and what to think all day long - hell even in your statement you are telling people not to act as if they are somebody's mother.

Bryant

[me b zola]

99. Okie-dokie

The next time that I feel I have something to "teach" you, I will tell you what you are allowed to do or say.

By the way, you aren't allowed to respond to me when I was "teaching" somebody else.

[JuniperLea]

90. childish insults?

oh, you mean like telling people they are using childish insults?

that is every bit as insulting as what you are railing against. condescending and rude too.

[Kelly Rupert]

103. Telling someone they're being childish is not, in and of itself, childish.

When someone is denouncing a political enemy by making fun of their name, then yes, it's pretty damn childish. Most of us got past that shit by 5th grade.

[JuniperLea]

107. Read again... I said it was insulting...

And it is. It is extremely insulting to call someone's actions childish. It is insulting, and condescending, both of which have no place here.

You cannot expect people to stop doing something just because you condescend to them and insult them. What you are doing is no better than what they are doing... in fact, it may be worse. It's sort of like beating a child for hitting another child.

[cali]

20. Why don't you just call him General Poopiehead?

It's just about as pointless. And what does it even mean to say "the Iraqis are all innocent"? Innocent or not, they didn't deserve to have the country invaded. Having said that, there are clearly Iraqis who are killing other Iraqis, not to mention kidnapping and torturing them. Lousy people exist in every society.

[madokie]

32. knock yourself out

I like beTreyUS myself
the Iraqi are innocent of doing anything to warrant our invasion and slaughter of them period.

[JuniperLea]

91. yes, let me insult you...

by condescension...


:eyes:


i'm not finding it the least bit humorous that people can rail against something they feel insulting, with more insults... condescention and rudeness too.


i prefer the way you spell it. there's a double entendre factor in it i think is smart:)

[ProSense]

70. How do you know that?

He did what Bush told him to do as a military commander.

I would like the entire military to walk off the job and disobey orders if that what it takes, but since that is friggin unrealistic, lets stick to reality.

Even the soldiers who want to come home are killing Iraqis. Are they war criminals?

[EFerrari]

4. Petraeus lied to help Bush start the war. He is complicit. n/t

[Netbeavis]

10. show me the proof of that false accusation

Petreus had nothing to do with the SOTU address with "Yellow Cake" or any of the lead up to the war.

Prove it to me, otherwise your post is inaccurate and falsely accuses someone of something heinous that they did not do.

[EFerrari]

13. My pleasure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1762489&mesg_id=1762489

[bryant69]

16. That's not proof that he lied to start the war

That's proof that he lied to support the war (or to continue the war), and there are better examples than that one of him doing that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[EFerrari]

19. Really? Whatcha got, Bryant? Fork it over!

:)

[bryant69]

24. I'd have to go back and look it up - Glenn Greenwald had

something a few days ago and it was a bit more solid than that - stuff he said in 2004. I can't find it - but there is a video over at Firedoglake that contains a lot of these statements - he narrates it --> http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/10/no-more-flack-for-iraq

Bryant

[EFerrari]

28. Thanks! I just saw him on BookTv. He was really compelling. n/t

[Netbeavis]

26. it still doesn't show that he was directy involved in the lead up

True that it was his report that the cabal used but it was the others that took the thin thread of possible evidence (his own words were he had some uncertainty) and tried to knit a blanket out of it.

[EFerrari]

29. I have no stake in tarring anyone. Finally, you have to make

your own evaluation.

[Netbeavis]

42. agreed. His hands are not completely clean.

But to what degree is up to debate.


-best

[NNN0LHI]

5. Ask that question to the families of those Iraqis he has helped to murder if this is over the top

See what they say.

Over the top my ass.

Don

[bryant69]

8. Has General Petraeus ordered the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians?

That you know of ?

or are you just assuming?

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

9. Well seeing the Iraqis never attacked us aren't they all innocent?

Or do you know something I don't?

Don

[bryant69]

11. Ah - so in your opinion an Iraqi shooting at American Troops right now

is an innocent civilian? And if the American troop defends himself and kills that Iraqi, it's murder?

Allow me to say that this war was clearly a mistake from the start and we shouldn't have invaded.

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

17. So, if a burglar/rapist invades your home and you shoot at him and then

he kills you, would call his killing of you "self defense"? I mean you cease being an "innocent victim" once you take a shot at the burglar/rapist, right?

[bryant69]

30. That's not a great analogy

Our soldiers are ordered into Iraq; they don't go by choice. A better analogy would be if cops occupied your home, and you shot at them would they be justified in shooting back? But that's not all that much better an analogy, I suppose.

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

37. Ok, so the burglar/rapist is a member of a gang and was ordered

by his gang leader to burgle your house. That better? You cannot equate the US in Iraq with any kind of legitimate law enforcement - that won't wash...

[bryant69]

71. Fair enough - so you want to see US Gang Members who happen

to belong to the US Army Gang to get shot at or blown up by Iraqis?

Bryant

[Dhalgren]

85. "Want to"? No, don't be stupid. But I will not deny the Iraqis the right

to defend themselves against invaders. The Iraqis' home has been invaded by aliens who appear to have no regard for their lives, who have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens for no goddamned reason. I cannot blame the Iraqis for fighting back - they are the innocent victims of these horrors - they have the right, even the duty, to fight fucking back. I hope that clears it up for you...

[bryant69]

86. Laughs - in other words you hope i stop asking you annoying questions n/t

[Dhalgren]

89. I doubt that there is much chance of that...

:hi:

[NNN0LHI]

18. In the absence of a valid reason for invading and occupying Iraq I say yes they are all innocent

I would feel the same way if Chinese soldiers were over here killing Americans who resisted their invasion and occupation of our county.

Wouldn't you?

Or would we all be some kind of terrorists if we resisted?

Don

[bryant69]

22. So the moral thing for an American soldier to do is either desert

or allow Iraqis to kill him? I mean if you were giving advice to a soldier stationed in Iraq today what would it be?

Incidentally, I will note that if we are using improvised explosives and killing our fellow citizens while we killed enemy troops or even when no enemy troops are around, than yes, we would be terrorists.

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

31. Funny you asked that question because I was almost faced with that dilemma

1973 to be exact. I was going to be drafted the following year. The draft ended before I was.

I had decided in my mind that there was no way I was going to be able to kill some Vietnamese guy who was just defending his country and wanted to be left alone in peace. In any encounter with "the enemy" I had planned on just taking the first bullet that came my way.

I didn't know if I should mention that to whomever was in charge in the event I was drafted? Or just keep it to myself?

Funny how the mind of an 18 year-old works.

Don

[bryant69]

33. So you would have gone to jail? Or fled north or what?

And that doesn't really answer the question.

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

36. I updated my post just as you posted

Sorry about that.

Don

[bryant69]

38. So you would advise our troops to get killed

I'm pretty damn sure I'm not going along with you on that one.

Bryant

[NNN0LHI]

39. I am explaining how I felt had I been drafted

There is no draft.

Don

[bryant69]

40. Yep - all our soldiers are choosing to be murderers.

They sign up to be murderers.

Or am I reading you wrong?

Bryant

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[conscious evolution]

46. Sad to say

but,yes,they do.
It is what the military does.
Kill people and break things.

Are they criminals? Some are but most are just as much victims as are the Iraqis.Caught up in something they have no control over.

[EFerrari]

43. My first husband was in that class, too, or maybe just ahead of you.

We offered him a ride across the border but he went in and got as far as Fort Ord.

[txaslftist]

60. Desert. Go home.

Refuse to participate in this immoral charnel house.

Other soldiers have, and they've been lionized here for their courage.

So that would be my advice.

[bryant69]

72. And if they choose to stay and not desert they are complicit in Bush's war crimes? n/t

[txaslftist]

79. Depends on what they do.

Being ordered into an illegal war by itself is not a war crime. Actively participating in criminal activities or war-crime activities is a war crime, even if you are "following orders". That's the standard that we imposed on the world from our moralistic high ground following WWII. Now we don't want to live up to those same standards.

My advice to a soldier right now would be to desert, walk away, refuse to participate, whatever you want to call it. It's an immoral and illegal war. I can't imagine trying to thread my way through it operationally without acquiring some of that immorality and illegality, but maybe there are soldiers who can.

If you know it's a crime; if you truly understand that, and you participate in it anyway, then yes. You are a criminal. Being in uniform or under orders doesn't change that (although it certainly reduces the chance you'll be held responsible while increasing the negative consequences of obeying your conscience).

[madokie]

34. I would be doing the same thing he is doing and you would prolly be too

that is if

Oh and the taking of Iraqi lives under false pretenses is murder yes.

[ProSense]

69. How about the Iraqis who are still asking for Americans to stay?

It's over the top! Focus on the people who can actually end the war. You remeember, the person who started it: Bush!

[NNN0LHI]

73. So if we were invaded and some Americans collaborated with them that would be the end of it for you?

Of course not.

Don

[cgrindley]

15. Not all American soldiers are war criminals

Some, most certainly, are. And although they probably don't know it, the "following orders" excuse didn't work in the past, nor did the "I thought I was right" excuse.

But, since the US controls the world, it will never matter.

[atreides1]

23. Yes

In all fairness, if German soldiers who believed they were helping and believed they were doing the right thing can be considered war criminals, so can those in the US military.

If you look at history, the Crusaders believed they were helping, but today what they did could be considered as war crimes, the Romans also believed that they were right in what they were doing, and let's not forget those places here in the US, where the military thought they were helping.

Places like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, where the US military committed atrocities, and they thought it was the right thing to do.


The excuse "I was only following orders" wasn't allowed as a defense in Nuremberg, and it shouldn't be allowed here either.

Remember the old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", that's what we have here, a lot of good intentions.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. I mostly agree, but a historic point--

The vast majority of German soldiers in WWII were never considered war criminals. The ones who were, primarily the Allegemeine-SS and SD-Einsatzgruppen, were VERY CLEARLY war criminals. They were military units purpose-built to kill and terrorize civilians, and anyone in them knew exactly why he was in them. Do we have such units in Iraq? I would hope not, but the Abu Ghraib gang came pretty close.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[txaslftist]

56. Maybe. Depends on each one's role.

Surely you don't think they're all innocents.

[cgrindley]

12. Knowingly prosecuting an illegal war = war criminal

the first thing the next president should do is to sign the international courts agreement and then pack the lot of these current assholes off to the Hague to face justice for what they have done.

[Junkdrawer]

14. A REAL investigation and trial are warranted...

The differences between reported deaths and independently measured deaths are so great that it's clear that a hidden massacre (genocide??) is going on.

Who...

Where...

When...

WHY....

[baldguy]

21. Yes

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
.1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
.2. Torture or inhumane treatment
.3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
.4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
.5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
.6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
.7. Taking hostages

2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
.1. Directing attacks against civilians
.2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
.3. Killing a surrendered combatant
.4. Misusing a flag of truce
.5. Settlement of occupied territory
.6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
.7. Using poison weapons
.8. Using civilians as shields
.9. Using child soldiers

3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
.1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
.2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
.3. Taking hostages
.4. Summary execution
.5. Pillage
.6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#Definition

[EFerrari]

25. The difficulty in answering this question is that we want to respect

the uniform. It feels like a thought crime to really consider the question at all when this man is USING his uniform to shill for the war mongers.

[IndianaJones]

27. no. nt.

[BushOut06]

35. Absolutely

If you think he achieved "success" in this surge by playing nice, that seems pretty naive. Whether he explicitly ordered crimes or merely allowed them to happen, it still makes him a war criminal. I'm sure the Iraqi citizens who had their houses invaded in the middle of the night, and their husbands and children dragged off to some "interrogation camp" would probably consider Petraeus to be a war criminal.

[TheUniverse]

44. No.

He is just following orders. The true war criminals are the policy makers. David Petreaus isn't commiting any war crimes such as targeting civilians or commiting genocide. He's just following the orders for a war that is a very bad war.

[EFerrari]

45. Much lower ranking and so less powerful people have refused

those orders.

[BushOut06]

48. "He is just following orders" - where have we heard that before?

Hmmmm - seems I recall hearing that defense at the NUREMBURG WAR CRIMES TRIALS. Sorry, but just saying that you were "following orders" doesn't cut it.

[TheUniverse]

51. Sorry, But General Petreaus didn't pull the lever on any gas chambers.

You cannot compare this to Nuremberg.He himself has committed no warcrimes. Correct the following orders defense didn't justify some of the nazi crimes. But Patreaus has done nothing like the nazis did.

[mike_c]

55. is that because only a million or so Iraqis have been killed...

...since the U.S. invasion? Was Nazi aggression OK up to the the million victim mark or so? What is the threshold for crimes against humanity status these days?

:sarcasm: just in case you didn't recognize it.

[BushOut06]

78. So as long as they're not sending Iraqis into gas ovens, it's not a war crime?

Granted, Gen. Petraeus didn't order any Iraqi civilians to be rounded up, placed in concentration camps, and gassed to death, nor has he undertaken any other sort of genocide. But you can still have war crimes without committing actual genocide.

As I've stated, the entire occupation of Iraq is illegal. Much of what is occurring in Iraq violates the Geneva Conventions. People ARE being detained against their will, with no due process at all. Families are being torn apart - people are being taken away never to be seen again. The military is using methods of brutality and intimidation to achieve this "success" they're bragging about.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. LOL

"just following orders."

Good one.

[mdmc]

47. All war is crime.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

49. Yep. And that's why the military has to surround itself with ritual

with panoply, with folklore. It's mystifying carnage to soften the reality.

[mdmc]

54. Peace and low stress

Keep on truckin / writing :patriot:

[rateyes]

52. He's the driver of the getaway humvee....

Bush and Cheney are the triggermen.

[Kelly Rupert]

58. Petraeus has not committed any war crimes.

He has not deliberately targeted civilians. He has not ordered genocide. His mission is to protect civilians--and counterproductive means, while wasteful of human life, are not criminal.

[mike_c]

61. he is orchestrating a war of aggression, the ultimate war crime....

You've proposed a straw man-- just because he has not ordered specific violations of the Geneva Conventions, he is still directing operations that are illegal under international law and U.S. treaty obligations, i.e. crimes against humanity. What else do you call people committing crimes, if not "criminals?"

[Kelly Rupert]

62. Your definition of "crime against humanity"

is totally unprecedented in international law. Never has anyone ever been prosecuted for simply being a general in a war launched under false pretenses years before he took command.

War ≠ War Crime.

[mike_c]

65. unprecedented?

The Nuremberg Principles

In 1945, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal defined three categories of crimes, including crimes against peace. This definition was first used by Finnish courts to prosecute the aggressors in the War-responsibility trials in Finland. The principles were later known as the Nuremberg Principles.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(snip)

...One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The United Nations Charter

The relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations mentioned in the RSICC article 5.2 were framed to include the Nuremberg Principles. The specific principle is Principle VI.a "Crimes against peace", which was based on the provisions of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that was issued in 1945 and formed the basis for the post World War II war crime trials. The Charters provisions based on the Nuremberg Principle VI.a are:

Article 1:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2, paragraph 4

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

[Kelly Rupert]

76. Neither apply.

1. Petraeus did not initiate the conflict. He is in charge of postwar stability and reconstruction efforts as part of the occupation, which is not covered.

2. No general has ever been prosecuted for that.

3. Moreover, war without UN sanction has not ever been prosecuted as a "war crime" in and of itself.

[mike_c]

80. the Nuremberg Principles include "waging" a war of aggression....

They do not apply only to the leaders who start them.

Your contention that the current conflict is "postwar" is disingenuous at best. Tell that to the Iraqis being murdered by U.S. forces-- "no worries, it's not a war any longer, just postwar stability and reconstruction efforts."

The circumstance that no one has ever been prosecuted for war crimes of this nature is not evidence of anything except possibly lack of will to do the right thing, and is most certainly not evidence that wars of aggression are not criminal.

[Kelly Rupert]

84. This is not a war any longer.

Who are the belligerents? The only other nation involved has invited our army to remain within its borders. Nuremberg principles do not apply here.

The war Bush started is over, and it was over when Saddam Hussein lost effective control of his military. Iraqi civilians now find themselves in the middle of something more dangerous than war--chaos, and not a chaos we are capable of managing. We are combatants. So are many, many factions. Iraqis are dying by US hands. They are dying, in far greater numbers, by Iraqi hands, and an Iraqi who is killed by a US airstrike is just as dead as an who is killed by a Shi'a death squad or a Sunni bomber. To depict the conflict as a war between America and Iraq is to dangerously oversimplify the situation.

Petraeus is not waging a war. He is attempting to end postwar instability. That is not a war crime per se, and has never and will never be prosecuted as a war crime. It may be a counterproductive mission which is leading to the deaths of many innocents, but it is not a criminal one.

[EFerrari]

88. He's ending postwar instability by arming militias?

Oh, that will work.

[Kelly Rupert]

92. Stupid ain't criminal. n/t

[EFerrari]

93. Because we know that those militias never kill innocents.

Sorry, no sale.

[Kelly Rupert]

94. Arming a local-defense militia is not a war crime either,

regardless of the later actions of those militias.

[EFerrari]

95. Yeah, REGARDLESS of the death and destruction.

Your term, not mine.

[Kelly Rupert]

96. Pretty much, yes.

The arms were given with the mission of defending Sunni communities from attack, whether from terrorists or Shi'a militias. Guidance and training were provided. If the Sunni militias later choose to attack the Shi'a militas nearby, that might be a predictable outcome, but it is not a war crime on the part of the General.

[EFerrari]

97. He is a criminal. And frankly, your attempt to sanitize him

is revolting.

/grammar

[Kelly Rupert]

100. I would think that were he a criminal,

someone would be able to provide me with a crime.

I never said he was a good person. I said he was not a war criminal. Legal and moral are two different things, and that seems to be a difficult concept for DU today.

[NNN0LHI]

63. Remember the battalions of Iraqi conscripts who were killed in the first days of Shock and Awe?

Well those Iraqi conscripts were innocent. Every last one one of them. They had neither the will or the means to harm us in any way.

Our military still blew them into smithereens on orders from some ate up, admitted "former" dope head and drunk.

Those conscripts had loved ones and dreams and were no different than you or I.

What right did Petraeus have to participate in slaughtering them? Does he even think about it? Does he lay awake at night thinking about those bombs and cruise missiles smashing into the barracks of those human beings as they slept? The horror? Does he ever think about that?

How does anyone think about that and defend this thug? How?

Don

[Kelly Rupert]

64. I was unaware that killing enemy soldiers during war was a war crime.

War = Immoral.
War ≠ War Crime.

[NNN0LHI]

66. Those conscripts weren't the enemy of anyone as we now know

Those were human beings who crazy man Bush ordered other people to kill for no valid reason.

Don't you understand that?

Even the best lie Bush can come up with now is that he ordered all those people to be killed because he had bad intelligence.

There is no defending this slaughter.

Come on now. Lets get real.

Just because a president designates someone "the enemy" (especially when many suspect said president is nuts) that doesn't automatically make them the enemy.

What would happen if the idiot told our military to invade and occupy Canada? Would you fall in line and just start referring to the Canadians as the enemy too? Would you?

Don

[Kelly Rupert]

77. Yes, I obviously understand.

They were human beings who died in an immoral fashion. They were also combatants in a war zone, and thus killing them was not a war crime. Rather, it is the definition of war.

You must make the distinction between "immoral" and "illegal."

[NNN0LHI]

82. You switched from "enemy" to "combatants" on me

There are "combatants" in every country. That does not give anyone the right to go kill them on orders from the Crackhead In Chief after his admitted conversations with god.

That is what Son Of Sam was doing. We put him away for that kind of stuff. And for good reason.

Don

[Kelly Rupert]

83. Combatants. Enemy soldiers. Same thing here.

Either way, I am referring to armed people in uniform in a war zone. Killing them is immoral, as is killing all human life. It is not criminal. You are still not making any distinction between an act of war and a war crime.

[NNN0LHI]

98. Good, I'm glad we got past that. Now to my original question above

What would happen if the idiot told our military to invade and occupy Canada? Would you fall in line and just start referring to the Canadians as the enemy too? Would you?

Don

[Kelly Rupert]

102. In the context of a war zone,

yes, of course. The Canadians--being the soldiers who are shooting and being shot at by Americans--would be the enemies of the American army. If you do not like that word, sanitize it to OPFOR if you instead choose. Either way, killing them would not be a war crime. It would be morally abhorrent, but so long as they were armed and had been given a chance to stand down (which a declaration of invasion would count as) it would not be a war crime.

Personally, they would not be my enemy. I would not refer to them as enemies in a context outside the extremely specific one above. Why do you ask?

[NNN0LHI]

104. These Iraqi conscripts were never given the option of standing down

Saddam offered to allow the FBI to come into Iraq and look for banned weapons before the bombing began to prevent an attack which Bush and his minions quickly declined.

Bush was going to turn these Iraqi human beings into pink mist no matter what happened. And he did. That is a war crime.

And there is no sanitizing the slaughter of innocent human beings.

Don

[Kelly Rupert]

106. Yes, they were.

First of all, the fact that we were invading was absolutely obvious to everyone. Moreover, before the war we leafleted Iraqi positions, informing them that we were intending to bomb them, and instructing them how to dismantle their equipment and indicate that they had stood down. In doing so, the US fulfilled its legal duties.

There is no sanitizing the slaughter, nor should it be, for the sake of humanity. But declaring all acts of war to be "war crimes" cheapens the phrase. There is a world of difference between bombing an artillery position that refused surrender and torturing before executing the crew of a position that did. There is difference between a conscript dying in a firefight and a mother being raped and set on fire. There is a difference between a general ordering an airstrike on soldiers fortified in a residential area, and ordering an airstrike on a mosque to terrify the populace. There is a difference between the level of cold, inhuman brutality expected in war*, and the vicious cruelty that must be punished as an exceptional act.


*Brutality, to a certain extent, is expected in war. That is why anyone with any level of maturity opposes all wars of aggression.

[whistle]

67. What is the basis for calling General Petraeus a war criminal?

[Flabbergasted]

68. nvem

[mudesi]

74. EVERYBODY at the top is a war criminal

Bush, Cheney, and the top generals. They are all responsible for an illegal war.

[NNN0LHI]

75. No disagreement there

These are not some mixed up 18 or 19 year old kids we are talking about here. These are grown up men who should have damned well known better.

Don

[ProSense]

101. No he's not, he's a

‘An Ass-Kissing, Little Chickensh*t

[Nimrod2005]

105. Please DU the above poll!!!

:)