Well it would be more convenient to forget wouldn't it? I disagree-- we need to always be aware of the crimes we committed and Never forget what we are capable of.


I am sure the British empire was responsible for many many crimes.


should we not apologise or feel any guilt? We are still at it any way. ever since the beginning of time we have warred, killed.

"Documented?"That's Bunk too. Most groups who "Document" so called "American war crimes" hate the US and lie through their teeth just to make "claims" about the US. We didn't kill tens of thousands of "innocent Iraqi's" at check points or anywhere else. We killed enemy combatants who engaged us in combat. Not our fault they fired on us hideing behind women and childern.

That's what they did, attacked us from mosques, schools, hospitals, orphanages...That isn't going to stop us shooting back, nor should it. If you choose to fight where children and women are seeking shelter, those deaths are on your head.

Plus, the vast majority of the deaths were done by tribal groups and relgious factions, on each other.

Vietnam was a hell hole where you couldn't figure who was who, we made some errors yes. Mai lai being the biggest one of note. Yet Vietnam was Frances baby, we got involved because we where thier ally..wich never seems to do us any good.

I think Vietnam as a whole was poorly fought tactically speaking, but that's just me.

Dude.. read the reports that were leaked by Wikileaks for yourself!

Countless after action reports regarding US soldiers killing civilians. These reports were often filed by soldiers THEMSELVES.

Now they weren't ALL war crimes in the sense that the soldiers are following the rules of engagement (though it has been argued that some of them are).

But that has never been the allegation.

And don't get me started on Vietnam.

re Vietnam-- well as I have only recently watched a dvd of that time-- Hearts and Minds--I am so shocked-- but what we see over again in war it seems to me-- that human beings so easily become innured to reality-- killing and slaughtering callously.


Almost as if it is just War Games.

We humans are a pretty predictable and can be so easily manipulated then switch off our humane emotions.

It seems to have always gone on-- and when the Presidents the Prime ministers call, it starts again.

At least many of those soldiers in Vietnam tried to desert because they hated what they were expected to do.

I never knew why Americans and I believe some Australians were involved in Vietnam at all. It seems as if it was Johnson who started it all.

brave warriors
 

They did it right defending their soil against NATO agressors, leading by the USA.

They kicked the UN inspectors out, that was all we needed to legally go in and finish the job. We weren't agressors, we were carrying out international law via the armistace treaty Iraq signed in 91.

Wikileaks doesn't prove anything other than this. American troops are highly trained professionals who get the job done. I'm not going to apologize for them doing what they were told to do and doing it well. Were there cases of mistreatment, yes, there were, and those responsible were punished. However, overall the American armed forces behaved very honorably, considering how devious and treacherous the enemy was.


The US bends over backwards to try and prevent civilan losses now, and the enemy knows it, so they deliberately try to intiate contact that results in dead civilans. Believe me, if the US really wanted to, Iraq and Afaganistan would be nothing but glass parking lots..so all this talk about how horrible the US is, is just talk.

legality
 

No, it was an illegal invasion into a sovereign state. What about weapons of mass destruction of iraqi origin? How much have you found?

Yes, highly trained professionals when you attack a third-world country.
And which job you are talking about? Perhaps, turning a relatively stable Iraq into a current bloody mess, filled by terrorists from all parts of the World? :)


if. But I seriously doubt.

When they kicked the UN inspectors out, that gave the US full authorization to invade. I have no idea why they used the WMD byline anyway, it wasn't needed legally, though they did actually find several types of WMD's.

They had barrels of strictnine, enough to kill everyone in the state of NewYork, plus various older WMD types like mustard gas. For some reason the UN stop listing mustard gas as "WMD's", don't ask me why, I have no idea why the UN would suddenly classify WMD's as suddenly non WMD's when we found them.

They also found the remains of the specific nerve agent they went in for, unfortuanely they had cleaned out the chem trucks with the only known reactant to destroy that particular nerve agent. So they destroyed the "smokeing gun". Guess that's a win anyway even if we didn't "find" it, Iraq destroyed it.

I would pit the professionalism of American troops against anyone in the world, doesn't bother me any. Perhaps a stable Iraq was the real threat to American interests and the destablization was done to inhance our influence in the region. Iraq get's their weapons from us now, so guess who will probaly have "trainers" with quick response bases in the region for the next 50 years?

Doesn't Iran, the country we are really interested in keeping tabs on, border Iraq?. Nothing the US does is without reason, they have long term goals that include viable energy sources and no direct challange to thier naval power, amoung other things.

If you doubt the US, the only country to actually use nukes on someone else. Isn't capable, or willing to reduce an enemy country to a smokeing ruin, why make claims of them being all big and bad, if you yourself doubt they really are?

My point was that every one knows what the US could do if they were really pushed hard enough, so no one really pushes that hard. Terrorist or otherwise.

GEORGE BUSH could not wait to go in there-- supposedly to topple Saddam Hussein. where was Bin Laden in this? How many civilians died or were injured and lost their homes> I hated that Britain was involved because of all the damned lies about WMD. Blair took us in despite many protests here in Britain.


I remember seeing a discussion on american tv where the general interviews with leaders and a few of the general public had a discussion I wish I could recall one of those MEn who was oh so eager to go in there-- He was a very nasty man indeed-- Not sure if he was a politician or not-- but he really was a true warmonger and racist.

warmongers
 

Did he depict iraqi people and arabs by racist terms or simply justify the war?

its too long ago to remember but I took an instant dislike to him and the way he was sounding off. wish I could remember his name. It had a sort of dutch sounding name I think.

guns
 

No, they did not give anything to the US administration.

Strictnine? So what? Iraq had neither missiles nor heavy bombers to deliver a suitable amount of strictnine to American soil.

Creation of dozen thousands of America-haters after the destabilization meets your interest in the region, eh? No problem.:)

First of all, you dropped A-bomb on Japan having a monopoly on nuclear weaponry.
Nowadays, if you attack Iraq or Afganistan by combat nuclear devices , Russia, China and India will be involved due to radioactive poisoning of their territories. You will not hold the retaliation strikes.

Yes, we had legal authorization. Iraq signed an armistace with conditions set, that saddam signed. Soon as he broke those conditions, the war from 91 was back on because it was never over.

Why do people assume WMD's have to be delivered by missle? They don't, some guy with a syringe can foul a water supply. Besides, wether he had missles with Strictnine or not didn't matter, he had the strictnine and THAT did.

Actually, we are creating dozens of thousands of tribal haters of other tribal groups, plus Iraqi's who don't trust Syrians, and Syrians who don't trust Jordanian's and Jordanian's who don't trust Saudi's and none of them trusting the Persians.

Again, if someone pushed the US into a cornor, they would use nukes. It's US policy and has been for 70 years. Those nations know this and wouldn't do anything to tip the scale in that direction. American anti missle technology is well beyound those nations capabilities of getting a ICBM anywhere near the Mainland.

It's partly why we get annoyed when North Korea plays with thier missle systems, we don't care how poorly thier systems work, what we don't want is to have to reveal how well our anti missle system does work.

I just found this titbit about Albert Einstein and his influence on Roosevelt. I never knew that.

.[4]

He escaped from Nazi Germany in 1933, where he had been a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and settled in the U.S., becoming a citizen in 1940. On the eve of World War II, he helped alert President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany might be developing an atomic weapon, and recommended that the U.S. begin nuclear research. That research, begun by a newly-established Manhattan Project, resulted in the U.S. becoming the first and only country to possess nuclear weapons during the war. He taught physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey, until his death in 1955.

this item is interesting about the Manhattan Project.

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QFT !.........

This makes no sense.

First of all you make points about how missiles arnt needed.

Then you point out how superior you feel about your missile defences.

What argument are you making?

It's actually two different statements, I accidently took out the inbatween paragraph.

The first one was in reguards to wether Saddam actually had WMD's or the missle warheads that could deliver them. To wich I responded that according to the armistice he signed that didn't matter anyway, because he broke the terms of the armistice. Wich had nothing to do with WMD's or missles.

The second is that North Korea is constantly showing off it's "missle capability". Iran tends to do this every so often too. Since the US's anti missle system is far more advanced that anyone had been led to believe, rendering any older style ICBM technology, like say North Korea or Iran has, obsolete. Some guy walking into a crowded football stadium with a gas canister, is far more of a threat than missles, in today's atmosphere.