If you read enough history, you will see a pattern that the victor is always the hero after the war. Regardless what they do. You don't need to look any farther than WW2. How USA ended the war, they dropped 2 A-Bombs into 2 major Japan cities and killed millions of civilians. You read it right, it's CIVILIANS. What make this action legit when compare to German's concentration camp against Jews, Japanese on Nanjang massacre and/or the recent 911 event is the USA won the war.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq
- Thread starter james_bond_3rd
- Start date
To the victor go the spoils, but moral high ground?
Not really....
Not really....
Quote from thecalip:
If you read enough history, you will see a pattern that the victor is always the hero after the war. Regardless what they do. You don't need to look any farther than WW2. How USA ended the war, they dropped 2 A-Bombs into 2 major Japan cities and killed millions of civilians. You read it right, it's CIVILIANS. What make this action legit when compare to German's concentration camp against Jews, Japanese on Nanjang massacre and/or the recent 911 event is the USA won the war.
they known to be trigger happy at checkpoints...u recall that incident when secret agent of sismi nicola calipari was killed for no apparent reason just after rescuin' sgrena from a kidnappin', innit...the story dont add up and it seems soldiers had reasons to act as they did...not to say those women have been killed on purpose but there's sure a pattern in the way soldiers react at checkpoints.
Why is it, that after 3 years, the Iraqi soldiers/police can't handle their own checkpoints?
Quote from Bitstream:
they known to be trigger happy at checkpoints...u recall that incident when secret agent of sismi nicola calipari was killed for no apparent reason just after rescuin' sgrena from a kidnappin', innit...the story dont add up and it seems soldiers had reasons to act as they did...not to say those women have been killed on purpose but there's sure a pattern in the way soldiers react at checkpoints.
I believe the phrase is "the victors write history." If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, no doubt Lincoln, Grant and sherman would have been hanged as war criminals. Iraq looks like an ACLU meeting compared to what happened during Sherman's March to the Sea.
WW II witnessed widespread targetting of civilian populations on both sides. After the war, the Geneva Accords purported to outlaw attacks against civilian targets.
In Iraq we have a conflict where one side recognizes no rules, attacks civilians routinely and uses the civilian population and mosques as sanctuaries. Our tactics are not effective against them, and we end up in a bloody war of attrition with asymmetrical rules. Our troops are held basically to a US domestic law enforcement standard, and the enemy is held to no standard at all. Our troops face death every day and face prsion if their responses are such that some lawyer or journalist can make an issue of them. At the same time, they realize that their enemies will one day receive an amnesty and probably be part of the government.
WW II witnessed widespread targetting of civilian populations on both sides. After the war, the Geneva Accords purported to outlaw attacks against civilian targets.
In Iraq we have a conflict where one side recognizes no rules, attacks civilians routinely and uses the civilian population and mosques as sanctuaries. Our tactics are not effective against them, and we end up in a bloody war of attrition with asymmetrical rules. Our troops are held basically to a US domestic law enforcement standard, and the enemy is held to no standard at all. Our troops face death every day and face prsion if their responses are such that some lawyer or journalist can make an issue of them. At the same time, they realize that their enemies will one day receive an amnesty and probably be part of the government.
Quote from Bitstream:
they known to be trigger happy at checkpoints...u recall that incident when secret agent of sismi nicola calipari was killed for no apparent reason just after rescuin' sgrena from a kidnappin', innit...the story dont add up and it seems soldiers had reasons to act as they did...not to say those women have been killed on purpose but there's sure a pattern in the way soldiers react at checkpoints.
Do you realize what a marine (or other) has to go through in the security of a check point? Think about what you have to deal with for a second.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I believe the phrase is "the victors write history." If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, no doubt Lincoln, Grant and sherman would have been hanged as war criminals. Iraq looks like an ACLU meeting compared to what happened during Sherman's March to the Sea.
WW II witnessed widespread targetting of civilian populations on both sides. After the war, the Geneva Accords purported to outlaw attacks against civilian targets.
In Iraq we have a conflict where one side recognizes no rules, attacks civilians routinely and uses the civilian population and mosques as sanctuaries. Our tactics are not effective against them, and we end up in a bloody war of attrition with asymmetrical rules. Our troops are held basically to a US domestic law enforcement standard, and the enemy is held to no standard at all. Our troops face death every day and face prsion if their responses are such that some lawyer or journalist can make an issue of them. At the same time, they realize that their enemies will one day receive an amnesty and probably be part of the government.
This is a no win situation for us. The only solution is to get the hell out of there. (Learn when to trade and when to stay out).
The only parallel I see is what you pointed out: the Chinese were using similar tactics against the Japanese as the insurgents against the coalition. But to stretch this to a parallel between the Japanese occupation and our occupation is categorically absurd. As a matter of fact, I think the Japanese occupation was unjust, and our occupation of Iraq is just.
First of all, anyone can go around the world and pick out every occupation that went fowl and use it as evidence against our Iraq occupation. Anyone can go around and make mountains out of stones by comparing the puny Haditha incident with whole battalions committing rape and genocide. Our Marines are fighting with their hands tied behind their back and you compare them to the Japanese rules of engagement in Nanjing? Ridiculous.
Secondly, the Japanese never had a handle on the hearts and minds of the Chinese. I keep harping on the fact that we DO have a handle on the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Otherwise, there would have been a civil war by now. There is no way we could pacify 26 million people by our current troop count. The only Iraqi civil war I have seen is the one invented by the media.
Same old nonsense: 40 people throw rocks and itâs a civil war. A few dozen people are killed and Haditha automatically becomes Mai Lai and Nanjing.
First of all, anyone can go around the world and pick out every occupation that went fowl and use it as evidence against our Iraq occupation. Anyone can go around and make mountains out of stones by comparing the puny Haditha incident with whole battalions committing rape and genocide. Our Marines are fighting with their hands tied behind their back and you compare them to the Japanese rules of engagement in Nanjing? Ridiculous.
Secondly, the Japanese never had a handle on the hearts and minds of the Chinese. I keep harping on the fact that we DO have a handle on the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Otherwise, there would have been a civil war by now. There is no way we could pacify 26 million people by our current troop count. The only Iraqi civil war I have seen is the one invented by the media.
Same old nonsense: 40 people throw rocks and itâs a civil war. A few dozen people are killed and Haditha automatically becomes Mai Lai and Nanjing.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
It's strange that you don't see the parallels here.
Japanese occupation of China during WWII
Chinese insurgency using land mines, ambushes, assassination and intimidation of (Chinese) collaborators and their families, and at times suicide missions - probably more Chinese were killed in these attacks than Japanese
Japanese atrocities against Chinese population in trying to put down the insurgency
Which army is facing the same situation today? And if you cannot justify Japanese atrocities against the Chinese, how can you justify them today?
Iâm only saying that people often link their moral compass to winners. If Hitler won, you and I would certainly not be persuaded by his victory, but thatâs because we're on the losing side. The winning side certainly believed Hitler deserved the moral high ground. But what about all the people on the sidelines? Like sheep, many would rally to the victor. The winner not only claims moral authority, but also creates a lasting hegemony for future generations.
I was also thinking in terms of Iraq. There are a lot of people who believe America does not deserve the moral high ground, and Iâm saying that if we defeat Islamofacism and make Iraq a free-standing democracy, a lot of these people will quickly put Abu Gharib and Haditha in perspective and forget about them, and believe what America did in Iraq was a good thing after all. Conversely, if we cut and run it will expand anti-American sentiment.
I was also thinking in terms of Iraq. There are a lot of people who believe America does not deserve the moral high ground, and Iâm saying that if we defeat Islamofacism and make Iraq a free-standing democracy, a lot of these people will quickly put Abu Gharib and Haditha in perspective and forget about them, and believe what America did in Iraq was a good thing after all. Conversely, if we cut and run it will expand anti-American sentiment.
Quote from hapaboy:
I don't get you Sam. How would the Nazis "deserve" the moral high ground if they had won?
Of course they would claim it, but how would they "deserve" it?
What I think you are saying is that the end justifies the means....
Which is a common concept of the right wing, and especially the Bush Administration....
Which is a common concept of the right wing, and especially the Bush Administration....
Quote from Sam123:
Iâm only saying that people often link their moral compass to winners. If Hitler won, you and I would certainly not be persuaded by his victory, but thatâs because we're on the losing side. The winning side certainly believed Hitler deserved the moral high ground. But what about all the people on the sidelines? Like sheep, many would rally to the victor. The winner not only claims moral authority, but also creates a lasting hegemony for future generations.
I was also thinking in terms of Iraq. There are a lot of people who believe America does not deserve the moral high ground, and Iâm saying that if we defeat Islamofacism and make Iraq a free-standing democracy, a lot of these people will quickly put Abu Gharib and Haditha in perspective and forget about them, and believe what America did in Iraq was a good thing after all. Conversely, if we cut and run it will expand anti-American sentiment.