British Commander Compares US Troops to Nazis

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=top5



Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.

One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."



I think that saying goes "War is diplomacy by other means". Just having superior firepower is not enough to resolve a conflict.

And another view on American blunders in strategy



Trail of blood leads back to American blunder: military experts

The seeds of the growing resistance were sown when the US decided to disband the Iraqi army in direct opposition to British policy, according to senior military and intelligence sources.

Just before the war, Britain's top military officer at the time, Admiral Sir Michael (now Lord) Boyce, directed his commanders to negotiate with senior Iraqi officers. The idea was for officers in the Iraqi army and Republican Guard to maintain order under British supervision.

British sources described the move to disband the Iraqi army as a huge error. The decision was taken by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from right-wing elements in the Bush Administration, they say.

It is clear that British policymakers are still seething at the American decision. The British plan was based on intelligence reports, that many Iraqi commanders would switch sides as soon as British and US troops entered the country. Though the Iraqi army crumbled and fled before the invading troops, it was not too late, British sources insist, for the Iraqi units to regroup and help maintain order. But any chance of success that Lord Boyce's directive might have had was shattered by Washington's decision shortly after the war to disband the Iraqi army.




http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081326788920.html


I have heard that "sand-ni%%ers" is a common expression.

Finally, now that the US is in, who is going to help it out?

Who will rescue the US?
April 12, 2004




America is slowly learning that it is Iraqis who will decide their own future, says Martin Woollacott.

Since the end of the Second World War, a cycle of military victory and defeat has been evident in American politics. It has taken the country from the apex of its military strength in 1945 to near disaster and then qualified victory in Korea, and then to failure in Vietnam, victory in the Gulf War, and now to Iraq. In each phase, but particularly after Vietnam, the impact of defeat has been to set in train a rebuilding of American military strength and, eventually, its confident and sometimes over-confident reassertion in a new situation.

The formative years of the men who have shaped the foreign policy of George Bush's Administration were influenced by the humiliation of defeat in Vietnam, and by the idea that if only the country's military power had been properly exerted, without condition or obstacle, Vietnam could have been won.

Iraq has become a test case for this concept of untrammelled military power, and it is proving a difficult one. With the excitement of the armoured race to Baghdad now a distant memory, the Bush Administration finds itself face to face, perhaps even more than its predecessors in Vietnam, with what could be called the essential meagreness of the military instrument. It can be a key that opens the door for other kinds of action, but it cannot substitute for them. Playwright George Bernard Shaw observed that any political arrangement that depends on soldiers is not likely to continue long.

The truth in Iraq has, from the start, been that the American "occupation", like most occupations, has never meant any kind of close military control of Iraqi society. Even if close control was desirable, American and other coalition troops are not present in sufficient numbers - nor do they have the language and other skills that would enable them to exercise it.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621832400.html

I was told off for metioning the poor language skills of the US in the conflict right at the start. Looks like I was right after all.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have heard that "sand-ni%%ers" is a common expression.


Sand-Niffers?

[charley_bigtime]

>The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

>Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."

>Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".




No holes in this one then.

[Dorian Gray]

Hey, at least the major fighting is over.:p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Hey, at least the major fighting is over.:p

Yes, now it's just colonel fighting. :p

[corplinx]

Perhaps AUP should start a thread where he posts the latest theage.com article that suits his outlook instead of creating all these different threads.

[Kopji]

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing.

hummm... I note he is not speaking from his base in Fallujah... Maybe this is from poolside in Bashra...

The British comments give the impression that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make it easier on themselves by deflecting Iraqi anger toward Americans. This does not sound like an intelligent long term strategy, although there is a lot of that going around lately.

It's occured to me more than once that maybe the British were only sending their really stupid big-mouth military people to Iraq.


Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml


Comparing Americans to Nazis seems a case of selective memory, the British once considered using poison gas on them. Those must have been different Iraqi's.

[Shaun from Scotland]

This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

I think they are mistakes of the present that are going to make the future worse.

[c0rbin]

Weren't the Brits kicked out of the middle east earlier this century?

[Reginald]

Nothing like a bit of AUP unsubstantiated source posting to drive the wedge in is there?

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Ok let's assume that it was said, and by someone who actually matters. One person said this in an unprofessional outburst, and yet look how quick you mob mentality people are to start the ""Didn't the Brits...." ......."From a pool side"........etc.

He's unprofessional, should have his arse kicked, but the speed that people have leapt in to "Tar with the same brush" just, IMO give credibility to the very comments that were made in the opening post.

Sad, really sad.


:(

Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Reginald

Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me.

Damn right Reginald. The guy has a job to do and should be doing his best to get his POV across to his Allies, instead of whinging to the press and causing unnecessary friction.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think they are mistakes of the present that are going to make the future worse.

Yeah but there is no point in saying "you shouldn't have broken te Iraqi Army up"

It IS broken up. So get on with what your paid to do and stop having a go at your Allies, or quit and go and take an office job in Daddy's firm.

[Clancie]

I so agree with this--and only wish the criticism would be more openly made.

I think one reason for this overdone philosophy toward thrashing opponents (one Bush shares with Sharon) is the total lack of military experience by any of those making our policies. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice has the slightest idea what war is about in reality. (And Powell, who does, is perceived as overly moderate--and is being very marginalized).

Even Robert Novak said that Rumsfeld is despised by the Pentagon. It must be frustrating to have policy set by the group of ignoramuses who are in charge.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
I so agree with this--and only wish the criticism would be more openly made.

I think one reason for this overdone philosophy toward thrashing opponents (one Bush shares with Sharon) is the total lack of military experience by any of those making our policies. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice has the slightest idea what war is about in reality. (And Powell, who does, is perceived as overly moderate--and is being very marginalized).

Even Robert Novak said that Rumsfeld is despised by the Pentagon. It must be frustrating to have policy set by the group of ignoramuses who are in charge. Hey Clancie,

I wonder what you thought of the Clinton administration. He was so despised by so many military leaders that a number of them lost their positions due to criticism of the Commander in Chief. Clinton and many of his consultants were seen as draft dodgers who were openly hostile to the military. Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Reginald
Nothing like a bit of AUP unsubstantiated source posting to drive the wedge in is there?



Ok let's assume that it was said, and by someone who actually matters. One person said this in an unprofessional outburst, and yet look how quick you mob mentality people are to start the ""Didn't the Brits...." ......."From a pool side"........etc.

He's unprofessional, should have his arse kicked, but the speed that people have leapt in to "Tar with the same brush" just, IMO give credibility to the very comments that were made in the opening post.

Sad, really sad.


:(

Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me. I happen to agree.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey Clancie,

I wonder what you thought of the Clinton administration. He was so despised by so many military leaders that a number of them lost their positions due to criticism of the Commander in Chief. Clinton and many of his consultants were seen as draft dodgers who were openly hostile to the military. Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.

When in doubt, you can always drag up the Clinton adminstration.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


Yeah but there is no point in saying "you shouldn't have broken te Iraqi Army up"

It IS broken up. So get on with what your paid to do and stop having a go at your Allies, or quit and go and take an office job in Daddy's firm.

They were two different stories from different sources, I presume. However, I suppose it is better to just blindly stumble along towards a worse crisis, and not have anyone point out that maybe there are ways to prevent it getting worse. Heaven forbid that the US troops should stop treating the Iraqis as 'gooks'.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

Wise words. I think there are some who would like to drive a wedge between the allies and are willing to support any lie or disparagement to achieve that goal.

I have seen the British military in action and I have to say that I agree there is indeed a thing or two we yanks could learn from them. The way this commander has gone about it, if the story is even true, is just wrong.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Wise words. I think there are some who would like to drive a wedge between the allies and are willing to support any lie or disparagement to achieve that goal.

I have seen the British military in action and I have to say that I agree there is indeed a thing or two we yanks could learn from them. The way this commander has gone about it, if the story is even true, is just wrong.

Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
When in doubt, you can always drag up the Clinton adminstration.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet? Clancie is making a point about the lack of military experience on the part of Bush and his administration. I tend to think that people first decide if they like a leader and then argue why. If their stated reasons don't jive from one leader to the next then I am right, right? I would just like to know if she is consistent.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Clancie is making a point about the lack of military experience on the part of Bush and his administration. I tend to think that people first decide if they like a leader and then argue why. If their stated reasons don't jive from one leader to the next then I am right, right? I would just like to know if she is consistent.

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They can blast the cr@p out of anything, but appear to have no idea of how to actually do anything else. War is diplomacy by other means, it is useful to have the full set of skills, I think.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.

Is it in your experience to be ignored by qualified and responsible people? Fancy that.

[Dorian Gray]

Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. Yes, he didn't commit a gaffe on the homosexual issue until late in his term.
OR
Are you saying that Bush has homosexual experience?
OR
Correct, Bush has more experience with committing gaffes than Clinton, in less than half the time.

I couldn't decide.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet? Doesn't someone have to be compared to Hitler first?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray


Doesn't someone have to be compared to Hitler first?

Didn't I more or less do that with the title?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. They can blast the cr@p out of anything, but appear to have no idea of how to actually do anything else. War is diplomacy by other means, it is useful to have the full set of skills, I think.

So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.


I blame the American War of Independence myself. They still seem to have a chip on the shoulder about that one. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.


I blame the American War of Independence myself. They still seem to have a chip on the shoulder about that one. ;)

That was a nice flight of fantasy there, don't know what it had to do with the point.

If the criticism was just bitching, then I might agree with you. Since it appears to be rooted in reality, then I think I might just disagree.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That was a nice flight of fantasy there, don't know what it had to do with the point.

If the criticism was just bitching, then I might agree with you. Since it appears to be rooted in reality, then I think I might just disagree.

It was a flippant point, but with seeds of truth.

Read your own quote again:

They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."

Now ask youself. Where is the verifiable proof that the US military view Iraqis as "untermenschen". Rather, this is the quote of an "unnamed" British officer is it not?How does this invisible person know what the Americans think?


Next ask yourself what is the criticism levelled in this quote. The ultimate poijnt is that the Americans are ghastly and inhuman. But why? Because they are not like "us British".

The aledged "proof" of the claim lies in these quotes: "the way the British are" and "[they don't view the Iraqi's] the way we see them".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


It was a flippant point, but with seeds of truth.

Read your own quote again:



Now ask youself. Where is the verifiable proof that the US military view Iraqis as "untermenschen". Rather, this is the quote of an "unnamed" British officer is it not?How does this invisible person know what the Americans think?


Next ask yourself what is the criticism levelled in this quote. The ultimate poijnt is that the Americans are ghastly and inhuman. But why? Because they are not like "us British".

The aledged "proof" of the claim lies in these quotes: "the way the British are" and "[they don't view the Iraqi's] the way we see them".

As I said, "British Commander Claims". You can take or leave it on that basis. I would point out, however, there is other evidence that the relations with the Iraqi people are not going too well. Right from the start, there were claims that the knowledge of Arabic was very poor, for example.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As I said, "British Commander Claims". You can take or leave it on that basis.

Quite.

I would point out, however, there is other evidence that the relations with the Iraqi people are not going too well.

Well, I think that is true, although shooting makes the news and middle class placidity in the Baghdad suburbs does not.

Right from the start, there were claims that the knowledge of Arabic was very poor, for example.

As opposed to those erudite British squaddies.:)

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.

And that's the breaks. Any disagreement about Miliatry strategy should be taken up at a political level.

Does this British Commander expect that Bush will read age.com and go "oh he's pissed we'd better rethink our strategy?" Does he think that bellyaching about the country that has by far the biggest presence there (and faces a far greater degree of threat) is going to help co-operation? I think most British squaddies would rightly tell this whinger to shut his trap and put his energies into seeing if he can get decent kit and equipment suppiled for his troops, instead of the garbage they currently have(if they get it at all). That's worth moaning about........

[Clancie]

Posted by RandFan

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.
Well, we disagree that being in the Texas National Guard (and not for the full time required of others, either) qualifies as "far more (military) experience than Clinton." Had Clinton been privileged enough to have that kind of option, he might have done the same thing. (Yes, I think they both share a tad of opportunism, although I fault Bush more, as a war supporter for not going to help others fight for his country).

But...I veer off topic. :( Anyway, much as it greatly pains me to address your bigger point...I'm going to concede it somewhat.

Looking at the comparative records (military, academic, government-service-wise) of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Bush vs. Gore, Perry, Christopher, Lake, and Clinton...if you take out the "philosophical preference", no, there's not a whole lot of difference there. (However, I think there's a philosophical difference--with Clinton's group emphasizing diplomatic over military solutions--a difference which, yes, I greatly prefer).
Posted by RandFan

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.
Well, I didn't say they were neophytes. I said that Rumsfeld is disliked by the Pentagon and that, other than Powell, they had no first hand knowledge of combat. And I -do- still feel that some first-hand experience of what its like on a battlefield is good for a Commander-in-Chief to have, regardless of party affiliation, before sending people off to fight. Would that mean JFK or Eisenhower was a better president because of wartime service than Reagan or Clinton? Not necessarily. But I still think it's valuable for a President to know what its like when he's telling others to go out and fight--and die--for their country.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I didn't say they were neophytes. I said that Rumsfeld is disliked by the Pentagon and that, other than Powell, they had no first hand knowledge of combat. And I -do- still feel that some first-hand experience of what its like on a battlefield is good for a Commander-in-Chief to have, regardless of party affiliation, before sending people off to fight. Would that mean JFK or Eisenhower was a better president because of wartime service than Reagan or Clinton? Not necessarily. But I still think it's valuable for a President to know what its like when he's telling others to go out and fight--and die--for their country. Thanks for the response Clancie.

RandFan

[Clancie]

To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out. Let me say that I disagree with you. I don't think this administration is necessarily arrogant. I think Bush took a great number of steps to try and bring the French and Germans on board. We tried to work with the U.N. but it became clear that they had other priorities.

I have not heard of the film about soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis. Do you have any references or links?

There has always been and always will be a degree of animosity between fighting units of different countries (see WWII). I think such comments should be viewed in a critical light. Of course if they simply reinforce your world view and it is easier to accept than question then there is not much that I can do to sway you.

Without doubt Bush has made some mistakes. His decision to invade Iraq may very well cost him the election. I don't have a problem with that since I so value our political process. I only whish people were more skeptical of the propaganda coming from their own side of the fence.

RandFan

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Clancie
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.

I have to disagree too for the most part. I think that despite the common assumption that the US are playing this whole thing with arrogance. (A trap I will not allow myself to fall into, to dismiss many of the joint decisions already made and documented throughout this conflict) I still believe that if the UK had a genuine felt objection to US policy, they would, could and probably do raise the matter BUT via the correct channels. Sniping via the press is not the sort of behavior I expect from professional soldiers. IMO the armed forces are a string in the bow of international politics, reservations of officers have always been sent up the chain of command. Post conflict lessons should be learned. However it is the armed force's duty to carry out the objectives set by their political masters. Unfortunately, to make a military into a viable and reliable organ, this has to be the case.

It is for this very reason that my respect for the UK's armed forces, has and remains as high as possible. A view that is shared, (despite this "anonymous" officer's comments) I firmly believe, by a large number of nations world-wide.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Reginald
I have to disagree too for the most part. I think that despite the common assumption that the US are playing this whole thing with arrogance. (A trap I will not allow myself to fall into, to dismiss many of the joint decisions already made and documented throughout this conflict) I still believe that if the UK had a genuine felt objection to US policy, they would, could and probably do raise the matter BUT via the correct channels. Sniping via the press is not the sort of behavior I expect from professional soldiers. IMO the armed forces are a string in the bow of international politics, reservations of officers have always been sent up the chain of command. Post conflict lessons should be learned. However it is the armed force's duty to carry out the objectives set by their political masters. Unfortunately, to make a military into a viable and reliable organ, this has to be the case.

It is for this very reason that my respect for the UK's armed forces, has and remains as high as possible. A view that is shared, (despite this "anonymous" officer's comments) I firmly believe, by a large number of nations world-wide. I agree but I must say that there are times when officers and soldiers should stray from the chain of command. Daniel Elsberg wasn't a soldier or officer but I think it was important for the information in the Pentagon Papers to get out. I'm saying this as a vocal supporter of the merits of Vietnam. I think the Holocaust would have been an appropriate time to bypass chain of command.

These are just my inexperienced and perhaps ignorant thoughts and feelings. I would love your response to them. Assuming of course that I was coherent enough to respond to.

RandFan

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Drooper


So, British military are criticising the Americans? You should hear what they say aobut the Aussies.


Let's get real here. Britain has a certain superiority complex when it comes to matters military; "the world's best military forces" is how they are always described domestically. It wouldn't be the same if the Poms weren't dissing on somebody - more usually those they secretly feel inferior to.


Of course, those who have an inferiority complex are prone to accuse those they believe to be their betters of being simply arrogant 'poms'

What exactly does the British military say about the Aussies? Can you give me an example of where the British military have criticised the Australian in the last 50 years or so? If so, can you produce any evidence to suggest that such a point of view is endemic to the British military?

Every army has a superiority complex. Otherwise the whole thing wouldnt work.

[Clancie]

Posted by RandFan

I have not heard of the film about soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis. Do you have any references or links?
RandFan,

Here's a video and transcript.

Video: US Soldiers Shooting wounded Iraqis (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

[Skeptic]

I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

Sure; but "speaking up" by giving an anonymous interview to the news services isn't exactly "speaking up", is it? It's trying to get attention by making noise in the media, instead of by arguments to the armed forces. It's the equivalnet of the flar-earther going to the media instead of trying to get published in the "biased geology journals who are ruled by the spherical-earth dogma".

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

Whatever makes you think you know what Bush is "shielded" from, if anything?

I hope -more- allies and more military leaders will speak out.

Sure--as long as they "speak out" to say that Bush is evil.

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Whatever makes you think you know what Bush is "shielded" from, if anything?
Well, he himself admits not reading newspapers or watching TV news. He relies only on what is handed him in his daily briefings. Why only expose yourself to information that is filtered to you by those with obvious biases and agendas (especially if you share those biases)? Would you? I wouldn't.

And I'm sure you saw the requirement now placed on demonstrators at his public appearances--that they cannot be visible to the President.

I call that "shielding" him from the reality of dissent and criticism (though obviously with his agreement). What do you call it?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Clancie

RandFan,

Here's a video and transcript.

Video: US Soldiers Shooting wounded Iraqis (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)

Hmmmmmm.... from the web site, "informationclearinghouse":

This web site is

An independent media source.

One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media.

.
.
.

This web site grew out of my personal frustration and anger at the failure of traditional commercial media to inform the American public, especially as it relates to US foreign policy.

A source of unreported (or under reported) news from around the globe.

.
.
.

This web site is the work of one person.

I am a private individual.

I am not affiliated with any particular political party.

I am not funded by any group.

I pay for all services associated with this site from my personal funds and readers' donations.

I am not independently wealthy.

I work and live in Southern California. (I could have guessed--Sk.)

As a guide to his objectivity, going to the home page (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/) shows that his idea of "objectivity" is "Palestinian children killed by israelies" (not a word mentions the israeli children killed by Palestinians, of course) and the "exposure" of how the evil zionists control the USA (e.g., "The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties").

Sorry, but somehow a one-person web site by an unnamed private individual who created it out of his "personal frustration" of the media not telling "the truth" (as he sees it) about the evil zionist control of the USA war machine (or the equivalent) does not an unbiased news source make.

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Sorry, but somehow a one-person web site by an unnamed private individual ...
Actually, Skeptic, while that approach (discrediting the source) often works, here it doesn't.

The authenticity of this video (first shown in a British documentary, then last weekend shown again on CNN) is not in dispute by anyone at all, regardless of who is housing a link to it.

No one from the military disputed it when asked about it on CNN--they simply argued if it could be seen as justifiable.

[Skeptic]

Well, he himself admits not reading newspapers or watching TV news. He relies only on what is handed him in his daily briefings.

Well duh.

That's the advantage of being president: you get to get your information directly from the intelligence services or the high command, instead of relying on newpapers.

Why on earth should the opinion of a reporter from the NYT (for instance) be more reliable than that of the head of the CIA or the generals who are actually in Iraq?

Why only expose yourself to information that is filtered to you by those with obvious biases and agendas (especially if you share those biases)?

As opposed to what? Newspaper reporters? Gee, now THAT'S an unbiased group...

I call that "shielding" him from the reality of dissent and criticism (though obviously with his agreement). What do you call it?

Yeah, I'm sure Bush has NO IDEA many people oppose him on Iraq and that anti-war protestors even exist...Anyway, I call it taking the opinion of people who know what they are talking about over the opinionated rants of know-nothings.

The point of the "not visible to the president" rule is rather obvious, by the way, and has little to do with Bush: it had to do with discouraging the silly, adolescent idea of the protestors that if only the president will see their protest sign, he will find out "the truth" that all those nasty presidential advisors are "hiding" from him and instantly convert to their point of view.

Now that this rule is in force, they actually would have to protest without this fantasy to drive them--which, of course, significantly lowers the number of protestors, which was the whole point...

[Clancie]

Posted by Skeptic

Anyway, I call it taking the opinion of people who know what they are talking about over the opinionated rants of know-nothings.
So all those people writing for (for example, the NYT) are "know-nothings" unless, of course, you agree with them politically?

Yes, I guess you and Bush -are- on the same wavelength. I think that's exactly his point of view toward critical thinking, too.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Clancie
To make my point clearer about this topic...I think if the British military feels they are being forced to be part of US military policies and attitudes toward Iraqis that they completely disagree with, then by all means they should speak up.

The British Army has to, and indeed does, accept that the Americans have by far the greater preponderence of forces. They have to work with them. This is why sniping about them to the press is bad form.

This is the most arrogant US administration I can recall and the way Bush is shielded from dissent by his own habits and his advisers is a well-established recipe for foreign and domestic policy disasters.

This may or may not be true, depending on your outlook. It hardly excuses having a pop anonymously at your allies.

The British are not our subordinates, and from what I've seen and heard (including that film of our soldiers shooting wounded Iraqis rather than letting them surrender), the criticism above seems likely to be quite valid.

The British Army have shot unarmed civilians in the past. Scared soldiers (even very well trained ones) firing without properly identifying the nature of their targets is not the sole preserve of the Americans.

[Skeptic]

So all those people writing for (for example, the NYT) are "know-nothings" unless, of course, you agree with them politically?

Even if they do agree with me, very often. As G. B. Shaw once said, "I am not responsible for every idiot that agrees with me."

I didn't always have that opinion. I used to take the "analysis" in the newspaper seriously. But then I noticed that, in reality, most such "expert opinion" is simply the writer's momentary impression, regardless of how many predications they make about what "history teaches", etc.

I then did a trial run: I looked at a whole set of opinion pieces of what is "going to happen" according to the reporters of TIME magazine--only I checked two months of issues from a year ago. I did the same with what is "going to happen" according to the reporters of the NYT, only I checked two weeks' worth of issues from a year ago.

I found out that virtually NOTHING of what the writers at the time called "the obvious developments in the future will be..." or "now it is clear that..." or "the administration must realize that...", etc. had in fact occured; and those things that did come to pass, usually came to pass in a form so different than the reporters' "expert prediction" was as to make it meaningless. Tossing a coin, throwing at a dart board, or throwing a die would be a significant better predictor than the newspapers' analysis. Worse, most newspaper "experts" have an extremely annoying insomania: they reverse their "expert prediction" of what will happen two years from now virtually every week, without apology; so what good is such an "expert prediction"?

Is the CIA or FBI better? I don't know--I, unlike Bush, do not get CIA briefings. One hopes to God that they are. But that as it may be, even if CIA and FBI are imperfect, they cannot very well be worse than useless. Using the newspapers to "supplement" CIA or FBI analysis is the equivalent of using leeches to "supplement" chemotherapy (hey, we don't want to be "sheilded" from views the medical establishment, with its obvious interests, hides from us, do we? Bring on the bloodsucking!). Perhaps chemotherapy doesn't always work; leeches never do.

A case in point: the press is now giving Bush the third degree about the August 6th, 2001, of Al Quaeda being determined to strike the USA. This is seen as an intelligence failure. Perhaps it is; but at least they got the person and intention right. But what were the headlines in the world at August 2001? What were the NYT and other papers--the ones Bush should have relied on for "other points of view"--talking about?

Well, the NYT on that day had the following op-ed articles: "The Nuclear Winter of 1945" (it was the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima), "Free Trade and Mexican Trucking", "Bare-Bone Budgeting", ""Virtue is not Easy to Foster", "In America: tainted justice" (about a death-row inmate), "A half-hearted push at reform" (on the elections). Not a word about any terror threat. Not, in fact, a word that was remembered the next week. And this of course is typical. What would he have gained from reading the NYT? Nothing at all.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
RandFan,

Here's a video and transcript.

Video: US Soldiers Shooting wounded Iraqis (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm) Thanks Clancie,

Sadly there have always been and always will be atrocities committed by soldiers of any country. There have always been and always will be those who like to hurt and kill. They exist right now in our ranks and have always existed and always will exist. Any criminal activity should be prosecuted to its fullest.

I don't know how this can be attributed to Bush or his administrations. Certainly there was no memo encouraging this behavior and no one has come forward with claims that the American military encourage this behavior.

It should be pointed out that the American soldier and the American military has had a better rep than many if not most other country's military.

I'm not really certain of the point of the soldiers doing this. Do the British deny that their soldiers ever commit crimes? At best the incident is anecdotal. Do you have something to buttress this incident to show that it is typical of or specific to the behavior of American troops?

I do appreciate the link.

RandFan

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thanks Clancie,

Sadly there have always been and always will be atrocities committed by soldiers of any country. There have always been and always will be those who like to hurt and kill. They exist right now in our ranks and have always existed and always will exist. Any criminal activity should be prosecuted to its fullest.

I don't know how this can be attributed to Bush or his administrations. Certainly there was no memo encouraging this behavior and no one has come forward with claims that the American military encourage this behavior.

It should be pointed out that the American soldier and the American military has had a better rep than many if not most other country's military.


It all depends on what information source you are using. From where I sit, they have a pretty bad reputation from various eras, Vietnam in particular comes to mind, with the attitude of the US to the 'gooks'. Even BOB has the guts to not pull it's punches.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Clancie

Actually, Skeptic, while that approach (discrediting the source) often works, here it doesn't.

The authenticity of this video (first shown in a British documentary, then last weekend shown again on CNN) is not in dispute by anyone at all, regardless of who is housing a link to it.

No one from the military disputed it when asked about it on CNN--they simply argued if it could be seen as justifiable.

Unfortunately, Skeptic appears to be unable to accept any criticism of his two favourite causes, the US and Israel.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by RandFan
I agree but I must say that there are times when officers and soldiers should stray from the chain of command. Daniel Elsberg wasn't a soldier or officer but I think it was important for the information in the Pentagon Papers to get out. I'm saying this as a vocal supporter of the merits of Vietnam. I think the Holocaust would have been an appropriate time to bypass chain of command.

These are just my inexperienced and perhaps ignorant thoughts and feelings. I would love your response to them. Assuming of course that I was coherent enough to respond to.

RandFan

Abundantly coherent as always.

They are a couple of very extreme exceptions you have chosen there and I can't in honesty say, with hand on heart, that my belief in the chain of command and the military serving the government could hold up against them. But they are extremes. I would say that IMO it would take something close to the scale of those however, to make me think twice about changing my position.

Even in a situation as big as the current Iraq conflict, the scale would suggest that there will be a high probability of injustices, irregular behaviors and unprofessional conduct. However, as we stand, at this point in time I see nothing that I consider (I don't want to make this seem heartless) sufficiently irregular to warrant sniping via the press by one side of the alliance by the other. I believe that all parties are having a say. I believe that the US and UK have different styles of occupation, neither is right or wrong. As a slight aside, but to some degree relevant given your reference, when the German's invaded the channel isles in WW2 they applied a completely different strategy to that in say Poland, in that they were instructed to be courteous to the inhabitants, even not pick the flowers. I raise this point to illustrate that even in a single military force, the tactics of any occupations are dynamic.

Throughout this entire thread, I have remained concerned about the validity of the opening post. Given the recent "decorating" of reports in the UK by a certain BBC reporter, I have become particularly wary of any reported anonymous sources.

I remain confident in the integrity of the military structure of both the UK and US, I also remain confident in the integrity of the UK/US alliance.

[demon]

If the British commander compares US Troops to Nazis or not, the parallels are clear enough.

The main characteristic of Nazi reprisals was their ferocity and their wild lack of proportion.

They used them for exactly the same purpose as the Americans: to terrify (terrorise) the population, raise their anger against resisters, and to quell the resisters by peer group pressure.

History shows that they were unsuccessful.

American universities have dozens of example of Nazi reprisals on their websites. Any questioning warmonger could easily look at them, join up the dots, and find out that the US imperial army has become the very monster that it once fought with such heroism.

For example, the reprisals as the Nazi armies retreated from Italy were fearsome, e.g. at Marzabotto near the Leftist city of Bologna, here:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/FA2002/frsm-1-005/partisans2.html

Or here's another from Yugoslavia that shows, as the website says, that "an easy conquest does not mean an easy occupation, even with local help".

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/savich3.html

Extraordinarily, the US Office of War Information published posters denouncing "Nazi Brutality" that showed manacled men with sacks over their heads, exactly as Arabs are treated in Iraq by US troops today.

http://images.library.uiuc.edu:8081/tdc/image/8285821842002_ww20158p.jpg

I take no pleasure in denouncing the US forces as neo-Nazis. Fallujeh was carried out by the Marines, a particularly brainwashed and brutal lot. I just hope that comments made by people like this British commander somehow get out there to the people in the thick of it and make them think.

I don't practise Xtianity or any religion but it offends me that those bloodthirsty lunatics took their sordid, criminal and totally disproportionate revenge during the holy days of Easter. Not because of the religion, but because they knew that the western world would be on holiday and the media would skim over it all the more easily.

I haven't seen such wicked cynicism since the bombing of Hanoi (Haiphong). They carried that out over Christmas, when the calendar happened to dictate that there would be no newspapers and few TV news bulletins for several days in a row. Kissinger later received the Nobel peace prize, so get ready for anything.

Fair play to the British guy for saying it. Nothing has been more revealing of the supine, craven nature of our "free and impartial" media than the refusal to call things by their proper names - resistance, atrocity, reprisals, fascists- instead we have "civil war", "defensive measures", "military containment" and "our allies, leaders of the coalition and the free world".


Watchdog: Probe Needed Into U.S. Action in Falluja
Tue Apr 13,11:12 AM ET Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=6&u=/nm/20040413/ts_nm/iraq_falluja_rights_dc

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
If the British commander compares US Troops to Nazis or not, the parallels are clear enough.

The main characteristic of Nazi reprisals was their ferocity and their wild lack of proportion.

They used them for exactly the same purpose as the Americans: to terrify (terrorise) the population, raise their anger against resisters, and to quell the resisters by peer group pressure. Rebuttal to agenda-driven Holocaust revisionism (http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galleryitems/holocaust/)

The Truth About The Holocaust (http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thetruth.htm) One of the Nazis favorite methods of intimidation was execution.

The Nazis first rounded up and executed those deemed "harmful" including those who were disabled and those with genetic disorders later homosexuals were added to the list.

The Nazis enjoyed stripping naked their victims before execution to thoroughly humiliate them.

The Nazis liked to single out children and old people to kill for sport.

The Nazis would force their victims to stand in line with their children and infants awaiting their slaughter.

The Nazis would often force their victims to dig their own graves before execution.

The Nazis loved to play cruel games like giving a mother a choice of which child would be spared and which child would be executed.

The Nazis used civilians as slaves.

The Nazis would ship captured civilians in locked boxcars without food or water where many died.
The purpose of the Army is to break things and kill people. Sometimes the methods used are blunt and unfortunately kill civilians and can be cruel without intending to be. Sometimes officers or soldiers go to far in their attempt to win the battle. Those who commit atrocities must be held accountable. That the U.S. Military engages in activities that can be paralleled to SOME of the activities of the Nazis is not proof that they are neo-Nazis.

Your argument is fallacious.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think the he was claiming they are Nazis. The treatment of the Vietnamese was infamous for the word 'gooks'. After Mai Lai, which was just about the only massacre that made it to the national attention, only one person was found guilty, then he was basically released, being placed under 'house arrest'.

The Nazis had to bring in the death camps because, apart from the sadists who enjoyed it, most troops who had to shoot unarmed civilians suffered long term stress and could not just kill people without suffering psychological damage, not matter what their ideology brainwashed them to believe.

The 'distancing' of the killer from the killed appears to be an essential part of the slaughter of others. The prime example of this is the the crew of a B52. They fly miles above the target, push a few buttons, and go home. The carnage that results is never apparent to them. I can't really see the difference, in practical terms, between these people and a suicide bomber. People get blown up either way.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't think the he was claiming they are Nazis. Hmmmm....

Demon

I take no pleasure in denouncing the US forces as neo-Nazis.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The treatment of the Vietnamese was infamous for the word 'gooks'. Just how much mileage can you get out of this? Yes, they were pejoratively called 'gooks' and to those imprisoned in Hanoi it seemed appropriate at the time.

I don't think calling ones enemy a "gook' is anything at all like shooting children in the back of the head for fun or stripping women naked before being shot. Sticks and stones and the butts of rifles will bash in a persons head but being called a "gook" somehow isn't quite as bad. The word "gook" just isn't going to stretch to cover all of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Just how much mileage can you get out of this? Yes, they were pejoratively called 'gooks' and to those imprisoned in Hanoi it seemed appropriate at the time.

I don't think calling ones enemy a "gook' is anything at all like shooting children in the back of the head for fun or stripping women naked before being shot. Sticks and stones and the butts of rifles will bash in a persons head but being called a "gook" somehow isn't quite as bad. The word "gook" just isn't going to stretch to cover all of the atrocities carried out by the Nazis.

Calling the Vietnamese Gooks was a part of the dehumanising process. Then, when you shoot them, it doesn't matter so much, they were only gooks anyway.

I just read "Chickenhawk". He described, besides his slow descent into a total nervous breakdown, for example, how they had the skull of a Vietnamese on their bar, with a string tied to it's skull, so they could open and close the jaw as a joke when they sang songs. If you look at the pictures of Mai Lai, there are plenty of civilians lying dead in ditches, with bullets in back.

Stop trying to avoid the truth. There were Australian troops in Vietnam. If Tet was what convinced the US public to get out of Vietnam, it was for Australians the graphic picutres of the slaughter at Mai Lai. I can still remember them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Calling the Vietnamese Gooks was a part of the dehumanising process. Then, when you shoot them, it doesn't matter so much, they were only gooks anyway.

I just read "Chickenhawk". He described, besides his slow descent into a total nervous breakdown, for example, how they had the skull of a Vietnamese on their bar, with a string tied to it's skull, so they could open and close the jaw as a joke when they sang songs. If you look at the pictures of Mai Lai, there are plenty of civilians lying dead in ditches, with bullets in back.

Stop trying to avoid the truth. There were Australian troops in Vietnam. If Tet was what convinced the US public to get out of Vietnam, it was for Australians the graphic picutres of the slaughter at Mai Lai. I can still remember them. Mai Lai was one incident and to be sure there were others.

However, equating the soldiers in Iraq today with the Nazis of World War II is untenable.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Stop trying to avoid the truth. What truth am I trying to avoid? I am vary aware of the atrocities of Vietnam. I'm not trying to gloss over them. I accept that the scope of that conflict ensured that such incidents would occur and they will occur again. But you cannot claim that the Americans were equivelant to the Nazis who commited attrocities on such a grand scale (please see links above).

[a_unique_person]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/img/mylai.gif

Mai Lai was most definitely not one incident.

Australians faced up to what was being done in Vietnam, even if it was not Australian troops involved in this event.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
What truth am I trying to avoid? I am vary aware of the atrocities of Vietnam. I'm not trying to gloss over them. I accept that the scope of that conflict ensured that such incidents would occur and they will occur again. But you cannot claim that the Americans were equivelant to the Nazis who commited attrocities on such a grand scale (please see links above).

No, there were not millions of Jews killed, but millions of Vietnamese. It is quite common knowledge that the Arabs are often referred to as 'sand *******'. The video link provided Clancie makes it pretty clear that the injured man was shot in cold blood. The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Mai Lai was most definitely not one incident.

Australians faced up to what was being done in Vietnam, even if it was not Australian troops involved in this event. It was my word and I used it as it is defined in the dictionary.

in·ci·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ns-dnt)
n.

An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.In which case it most certainly WAS one incident.

But hey let's get into a three day argument over the word incident. I did NOT intend to mean a single death. AND I said there were others.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, there were not millions of Jews killed, but millions of Vietnamese. The U.S. did not set up a system to efficiently target and kill civilians. The U.S. did not do all of the things that I listed above.

It is quite common knowledge that the Arabs are often referred to as 'sand ni**ers'. The video link provided Clancie makes it pretty clear that the injured man was shot in cold blood. The epithets used by our soldiers is wrong. That does not make your argument. The video link provided by Clancie is anecdotal. Please see the links that I provided above and tell me the two equate.

The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now. Perhaps, but this does not equate with the deliberate genocide and many other atrocities carried out by the Nazis. You are failing to make your argument.

[demon]

I see you edited your post RandFan:p

AUP:
"The attacks on Fallujah are killing innocent civilians, and ensuring that for generations to come, people who may not have hated the US before will hate them with a passion now."

There is something wrong here. Everyone can formulate their own explanations for it, but it goes something like this: even our best media are +not+ outraged by the mass killing of unallied, Third World people - even unarmed men, women and children (even tiny infants) - by Western troops. They find it neither shocking, nor horrific; it's not considered cruel or questionable. It is considered something that simply happens from to time. Dying en masse is just what Third World people do.

Think of the complete absence of outrage in our media and political system over Falluja and then recall the impassioned pretexts for war on the need to protect the Iraqi people from a violent dictator.

It`s also to do with the pro-war left's sense of a "price worth paying" - it's a given that they can determine this for others because their "values" represent a superior form of life.
Although they wouldn't admit it, the attitude of the cruise-missile leftists to the deaths of Iraqis is pretty much identical to the Pentagon's - when pushed, the five-asiders will tell you "Iraq's free and you can't put a price on freedom". It's why they don't count casualties - 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 - so what?

Denis Halliday always says if you ask an American student how many people died in the Vietnam war, they'll tell you 58,000 because that's the number on the monument. The millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who lost their lives simply don't register.

Someone forwarded to me email correspondence they'd had with Johann Hari (a uk journalist), about the use of DU in Iraq. Hari agreed it was deplorable - it would still be killing people 20 years from now -but

"..the casualties will be far, far lower than Saddam's.."

So, there you have it; journalists and politicians convinced of their moral superiority, in denial and pig-ignorant.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by demon
I see you edited your post RandFan:p Yes, I'm very visceral. No mater how hard I try I get angry, respond and then regret the response.

My appologies.

[demon]

No problem RandFan but appreciated....I`ve said much worse than that on these forums in the past.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
[url]Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.

One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."

.

As such a unique person, I would have thought you would avoid quoting anonymous people, however important they claim to be. You show yourself to be just the usual apologist who couldn't win a war if it was in your own bedroom, because you would be too polite to kick that bastard out of your bed, along with your wife.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
The U.S. did not set up a system to efficiently target and kill civilians. The U.S. did not do all of the things that I listed above.

The epithets used by our soldiers is wrong. That does not make your argument. The video link provided by Clancie is anecdotal. Please see the links that I provided above and tell me the two equate.

Perhaps, but this does not equate with the deliberate genocide and many other atrocities carried out by the Nazis. You are failing to make your argument.

It may not have set out to do that, and I don't think the US is as bad as the Nazis. The massacres against the Vietnamese, however, are evidence of a systemic failure that has still not been addressed.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It may not have set out to do that, and I don't think the US is as bad as the Nazis. The massacres against the Vietnamese, however, are evidence of a systemic failure that has still not been addressed. I will give you that.