War Crimes in Iraq, will we ever know??

[frontier-auxilia]

OK this may possibly be in the wrong section and a touchy (or offensive) subject for some members here whom were mainly from the states or known friends, love ones or family members that served during the discussed period. However this had bugged me ever since and i couldn't just let it slide, so people please bear with me.

As we all know, it took America a full year before the news of the attrocious slaughter in My Lai during the vietnam war to be brought to light and finally accepted as truth rather then fictitious account made by unpatriotic hippies. Now could this possibly happaned in Iraq? Apart from the most famous examples, civilian abuses, human right infringement and killings were not simply a product of selected cases or misfire. Yet from what i saw in the news, many of these were often discredited as even the New York times favored reported provided to them by officials in the green zone rather then soldiers witnessing actual events as their source of imformation. With that many of the details were often white-washed as if (ok you all can disagree with me on this one) to sanitised the U.S military occupation to make it more acceptable to the general public. With this revelation in mind, will all those known crimes ever be revealed after a prolonged period, the perpretrators free for the sake of manpower or will it be forgotten in the pages of history?

Just wanted some answers.

[Caucasus]

No, Iraq is the not the first place. Maybe our children in the future will read about it in the books

[Kjertesvein]

No. The whole press at the time supported the invasion of Iraq and at any means. They can't uncover their wrong doing. It would be an economic support suecide. The american press and government is the most hollywood of all the western istitutions.

[Exarch]

the USG has learnt a lot from vietnam

y'know, i wasnt really that surprised to hear about abu ghraib, so who knows.

[Katsumoto]

This is America we're talking about, when have they ever been accountable for anything?

[Bwaho]

winners don't get court martialed

[white-wolf]

Is not that USA who does not sign on the International Courts? Did not USA declare that they will not hand over suspects to the International Courts?

[Bovril]

I've talked to a couple of people I know who have been posted to Iraq about this (including the commander of a regiment). They say that the British army takes this sort of thing very seriously, but cannot stop, during wartime, some very serious abuses. This, I feel, is the point. War necessarily entails horrendoues violience by all parties, including the 'good guys'. The same goes for the command structure.
There have allready been atrocitites far, far worse than Mai Lai in terms of the number of innocents knowingly killed. The seige and assault of Fallujah was one of the worst war crimes in post WW2 history. Because much of the killing was done form range it will never have the same visceral impact, but the tradgedy is on a grander scale by far than Mai Lai.

[Caucasus]

I've talked to a couple of people I know who have been posted to Iraq about this (including the commander of a regiment). They say that the British army takes this sort of thing very seriously, but cannot stop, during wartime, some very serious abuses. This, I feel, is the point. War necessarily entails horrendoues violience by all parties, including the 'good guys'. The same goes for the command structure.
There have allready been atrocitites far, far worse than Mai Lai in terms of the number of innocents knowingly killed. The seige and assault of Fallujah was one of the worst war crimes in post WW2 history. Because much of the killing was done form range it will never have the same visceral impact, but the tradgedy is on a grander scale by far than Mai Lai.

Remember the video where "terrorist" where executed in the mosque ? Good post by the way.

[Phier]

There have allready been atrocitites far, far worse than Mai Lai in terms of the number of innocents knowingly killed. The seige and assault of Fallujah was one of the worst war crimes in post WW2 history. Because much of the killing was done form range it will never have the same visceral impact, but the tradgedy is on a grander scale by far than Mai Lai.

Have you been paying attention to the rest of the world for the last 60 years?

I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous statement.

[Nietzsche]

Have you been paying attention to the rest of the world for the last 60 years?

I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous statement.

I've been digging around to try and find when the entire concept of war began to change. I think it started during Korea when the press began to exert it's influence on military action and thereby the political process. I don't see anybody accusing the RAF or USAAF of warcrimes for the deliberate bombing of civilians in WW2 and the massive number of civilian casualties during the invasion of France.

It used to be understood that when hostilities commenced casualties would be imminent. Now, if a single civilian dies in a firefight, the entire offending nation is a criminal enterprise. Give me a break. Spare me the excessive and ridiculous moralizing and accept war for what it is. A dirty ugly mess that creates corpses.

The only time war crimes (a highly politicized and abused term much like racism) should be inferred is when civilians are deliberately targeted with absolutely no regard for their welfare or when men under surrender or POWs are abused. A situation that does not exist in most cases (despite what the America-haters say). If the enemy wants to abuse the GC and hide behind the skirts of women then it should come as no surprise when both killed. Tragic yes. War crime no.

War is terrible. It brings death, impoverishment, destruction, famine, and other untold horrors. That is why it is not used unless no other alternative is available. If America was such a warmongering country we wouldn't have needed any pretext to destroy anyone. We would just aim our cannons and rockets and begin the assault. Collateral damage is part and parcel with the prosecution of war. If you can't stomach it, turn off your TV. If you find it morally objectionable, read your history. The concept of the modern state was not born from an idealistic sit-in. It was paid for in blood and suffering of millions. The Afgans and Iraqis are paying that price now. One can only hope that in the end they find it was worth it.

[iudas]

All countries commit war crimes in wars. It's disgusting, though, that some get to judge others for crimes that they've also committed.

[motiv-8]

Is this supposed to be a serious topic?

The majority of crimes committed by service members in Iraq have been excellently documented both by the U.S. Government and the American media, from the New York Times to TIME Magazine to the CBS Evening News. Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and all too common cases of rape, murder, and accidental attacks on civilians are all available all over Internet and print documents. There is no white-washing going on, there is no cover-up, only general apathy on the part of the American public -- far more concerned with the well-being of sons, daughters, wives, husbands -- and the unwillingness of military justice systems to fully prosecute violations, for various reasons that I don't know of or don't want to explain. There's also the fact that Iraqis did far more death-dealing and damage to each other, and continue to do so, than the forces of the coalition ever could have.

But let's be serious -- Fallujah a war crime? That is the biggest BS I've seen come out of analysis of the military's conduct of the war, and I can say this with clear conviction having trained with several Marines who actually fought there. The place was a nightmare caused by the insurgency, not by the U.S. military. American authorities repeatedly warned the civilians of the city to evacuate, while the insurgents threatened them to stay by pain of death. Thousands upon thousands did indeed evacuate -- it's not like the city was bombed and destroyed indiscriminately by surprise. It was a city crawling with combatants and had to be dismantled piece by piece through ferocious fighting, while civilians were used as shields and playthings by their supposed "resistance."

War crime, my ass. If you're going to be scandalous, at least blame the right people -- the insurgents.

[Caucasus]

War crime, my ass. If you're going to be scandalous, at least blame the right people -- the insurgents.

Hi motiv, I think that you are an awesome guy but I gotta disagree.

Why did those people become insurgents?

[Farnan]

Hi motiv, I think that you are an awesome guy but I gotta disagree.

Why did those people become insurgents?

Various reasons.

The initial insurgents were mostly disaffected Baathists who lost their jobs and to them the future seemed so bleak (thanks to deBaathification) that they decided that fighting the coalition was the only way to retake it. The violence that spawned, from both insurgents and Americans, created instability. This instability fueled the violence as more and more Accidental Guerrillas. Into this action stepped Al Qaeda who claimed to be the only group that can save the Sunnis from the Shia. Around this time sectarian groups also formed who killed off people of the opposite sect, which encourage people of that sect to take revenge thus creating a cycle of violence. This cycle created more and more Accidental Guerrillas, and the violence fueled itself. In this was American actions which were focused at trying to kill their way out of the insurgency which meant that actions were taken that created even more Accidental Guerrillas. It wasn't until the US doctrine was changed and we started bringing Accidental Guerrillas back into the fold did peace begin.

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

There can be no crimes in war. War is war, it is already committing one of the greatest crimes of all: taking away lives that could have done so much, or nothing at all.

[Maverick]

If America was such a warmongering country we wouldn't have needed any pretext to destroy anyone. We would just aim our cannons and rockets and begin the assault. Collateral damage is part and parcel with the prosecution of war. If you can't stomach it, turn off your TV. If you find it morally objectionable, read your history.

Actually they do need a pretext because in American mythology they only go to War in self-defense. When there is no Pearl Harbor they invent one like in Vietnam or the Iraq War.

The concept of the modern state was not born from an idealistic sit-in. It was paid for in blood and suffering of millions. The Afgans and Iraqis are paying that price now. One can only hope that in the end they find it was worth it.

We can kill them all, then they will all be at peace.

[Nietzsche]

Actually they do need a pretext because in American mythology they only go to War in self-defense. When there is no Pearl Harbor they invent one like in Vietnam or the Iraq War.

Ah yes, here comes the march of the moralizers. Vietnam was a result of a flawed political policy that believed self-defense meant pre-emption. Iraq One had broad support. I consider Iraq Two as a mere extension of Iraq One. In any case, I don't know where this mythology comes from. We shot first in the Revolution. Arguably shot first in 1812. Cause our own problems in 1861. Created an atmosphere for war against Spain... etc... etc...

I can assume by the "they" that you aren't American. I'm sure a short examination of the history of your own country would provide plenty examples of the same mentality. So, I'll repeat again; spare us all the excessive moralizing when it comes to war. There is no moral war, only justifiable ones.

We can kill them all, then they will all be at peace.

Yes, yes, because that is what we are doing, summarily executing every Iraqi and Afgani on Earth. We're not nation building, or dumping an enormous percentage of our GNP trying to bring either of these two nations up to a standard of living that may finally be conducive to liberty. I'll not quibble with the idea of nation building in itself (I have my own problems with it), but I categorically dismiss the idea that all American GI's are nothing but thugs murdering civilians at every chance they get. It's incendiary nonsense devoid of factual evidence.

[motiv-8]

Actually they do need a pretext because in American mythology they only go to War in self-defense. When there is no Pearl Harbor they invent one like in Vietnam or the Iraq War.

Big deal, the Romans had that down millenia before the land upon which America was founded was ever discovered. In fact.. name me a country that regularly went to war with declarations like WE ARE THE AGRESSOR! HA HA HA, SEE, HERE'S OUR EVIL LAUGH!

. We can kill them all, then they will all be at peace.

On the Internet it's sometimes difficult to tell ignorance from facetiousness.. Are we feeling optimistic today....? No.

[Maverick]

Big deal, the Romans had that down millenia before the land upon which America was founded was ever discovered. In fact.. name me a country that regularly went to war with declarations like WE ARE THE AGRESSOR! HA HA HA, SEE, HERE'S OUR EVIL LAUGH!

Was that what was most important to the average Roman citizen?
Whether or not a War was ethically justifiable?

Do you have any examples?

On the Internet it's sometimes difficult to tell ignorance from facetiousness.. Are we feeling optimistic today....? No.

For some people it's difficult.