The "highway of death" 1991....views of a reporter, General McCaffrey, and other military figures.

[madfloridian]

About the only positive view of this veritable slaughter of Iraqis fleeing Kuwait in 1991 is that of General Barry McCaffrey. It was one of the greatest propaganda pieces of the 1st Gulf War. Fortunately, if I remember correctly, some of the media had the decency to back off when they realized what a great tragedy they were presenting to the public.

First the reporter, a novice, and her view of the women waiting for their men to come home via the Road to Basra...also known as the Highway of Death.

A rookie war reporter in 1991, explains the meaning of 'collateral damage'

The 1991 Gulf war was my first experience as a war reporter. As a freelancer, I had knocked on the door of the Irish Times's D'Olier Street office with a piece of gold glittering in my palm: a valid Iraqi visa. I got to meet the editor, who bought me a ticket to Baghdad....The first days of that war had a curiously surreal air. Most of the press had left before the bombing started. The desperately ambitious, the thrill-seekers and the conscientious stayed on. Still, we were 1,000 miles from the front.

..."Then, one night, Abu Tariq took me to the war. At a bus station south of Baghdad I came across a road filled with the wives, mothers and daughters of the cannon fodder you see in these pages. They were the women of the soldiers of the Basra Road. They were rushing at each battered minibus, taxi and truck arriving from the front at Basra. Like black bees at a honeycomb, they were hurling themselves at the survivors, pulling at the bloodied, wounded men in search of their sons, their fathers and those they loved. "Have you seen him?" "Where is he?" "Is he not with you?" Then, as each heard the news, she would fall to her knees to mourn for one of the 37,000 men who would not come home. It went on all night, a wail of pain and desperation. It was the most pitiful sight I have ever witnessed.

37,000 who did not come home? I don't think we ever heard that figure in this country.

Two days later, I flew home, my head still filled with the women's faces. I picked up a copy of Newsweek on the plane. On the cover was the jubilant General Norman Schwarzkopf. Inside was his description of their victory at the Basra Road. There was obscene detail of F16s and laser-guided missiles, and how they had trapped the fleeing Iraqi army from the air. He was reliving the highlights as if they were the final moments of a cup match.

I cried on that plane. Partly still in shock at the women and the pain at that Baghdad station, and partly with shame, because I knew we had done such a lousy job of reporting the war. Few of the pictures you see on these pages were ever seen at the time. The body parts of these men being shovelled into the mouths of the bulldozers were men whose choice was to die at the front or be shot for deserting. This time they face the same choice. I've been back to Iraq many times. Mostly it has been to write about the sanctions that have destroyed the people of that pitiful nation. In between, I've been to other wars, but as this one builds, it becomes almost unbearable to follow.

Demolished and disabled vehicles litter the ‘Highway of Death’ in the hours after Iraqi forces were slaughtered by US strikes. (Source: Public domain / US Department of Defense)

And now to hear from some generals about this death and destruction. I have not been able to tolerate General Barry McCaffrey on TV at all since this time.

February 26-March 2, 1991: Thousands of Retreating Iraqis Slaughtered

Five-Hour Air, Armor Assault - The March 2 attack on the Iraqi Republican Guard “Hammurabi” tank division is ordered by Army General Barry McCaffrey (the general who commanded the already-famous “left hook” maneuver days before—see February 23, 1991 and After), in response to what McCaffrey says is an attack on his forces with rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). The decision surprises some in the Allied command structure in Saudi Arabia and causes unease among civilian and military leaders in Washington, who worry about the public relations ramifications of an attack that comes days after a cease-fire was implemented (see February 28, 1991). McCaffrey himself later calls the attack “one of the most astounding scenes of destruction I have ever participated in.” The “Hammurabi” division is obliterated in the assault.

Criticism from fellow officers:

One critic is the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Unit, Lieutenant General James Johnson, who will later say: “There was no need to be shooting at anybody. (The Iraqis) couldn’t surrender fast enough. The war was over.” Johnson, whose unit is deployed near McCaffrey’s, will add, “I saw no need to continue any further attacks.” Explaining why McCaffrey ordered the assault on his own authority, Johnson will say that McCaffrey—widely perceived as CENTCOM commander General Norman Schwarzkopf’s favorite general—“does what he wants to do.”

Another critic:

Lieutenant General Ronald Griffith, commanding the 1st Armored Division of VII Corps, will later say that many of the tanks destroyed in the assault were being transported on trailer trucks to Baghdad, with their cannons facing away from the US troops, and thus posing no threat. “It was just a bunch of tanks in a train, and he made it a battle,” Griffith will later say of McCaffrey. “He made it a battle when it was never one. That’s the thing that bothered me the most.”

Another:

Major James Kump, the senior intelligence officer for the Army’s 124th Military Intelligence Battalion, is monitoring what he believes to be a routine retreat before McCaffrey’s units begin attacking the Iraqi forces. Kump will later recall: “I thought, I can’t believe what I’m hearing! There’s nothing going on. These guys are retreating.” Kump receives a large amount of electronic data indicating that McCaffrey is attacking a retreating force. “I had links to several intelligence systems—more than I can talk about,” he will later say. “And I’d have known if troops were moving toward us.… I knew of no justification for the counterattack. I always felt it was a violation of the ceasefire. From an integrity standpoint, I was very troubled.”

Apparently Schwarzkopf first used the term Highway of Death. If I remember correctly, he seemed to have few qualms about any of it. I found this on a message board from 1998 a couple of years ago. It really struck me hard.

Thousands of Iraqi soldiers died in that airstrike -the massacre was so brutal and senseless that it sent tremors in the journalistic and artistic community. After the airstrike, burnt carcasses of the Iraqi soldiers littered the highway for miles. The images were too vivid to be shown to the public, and no one has talked about this incident since.

A friend of mine, who at that time was part of the 83rd airborne division, stationed in Riyadh, told me that fighter pilots who were sent again and again that day to bomb and strafe the trapped Iraqis would come back in tears at the savagery of the attack. Many of them subsequently suffered nervous breakdowns of various degrees and are haunted by the war to this day.

The U.S. Army coined the phrase ``The Highway of Death`` for this massacre, and was first used by Gen. Schwarzkopf two days after the liberation of Kuwait City. Saddam Hussain has never publicly admitted to the massacre.
1998 message board comment

And of all of these people, General McCaffrey has gotten more airtime. He has gotten much credibility from CNN through the years.

It's amazing really to look back at those who were supposedly heroes at the time. We did not learn, we went back to that country and invaded it in 2003....after bombing it constantly during the 1990s. Yet the American people and the Congress believed George Bush that this beaten, broken country was an imminent threat.

[burrowowl]

1. K&R: War Crime and Bu$h Sr. should also

be indicted.

[tuckessee]

2. It's considered one the greatest moments of American military history.

That should tell us something about that institution.

[madfloridian]

10. I think probably someone will be along...

to straighten me out how great it was. Yes, it tells us a lot about who we are to make it heroic. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Anybody who tells you any of this was heroic needs a DD-4

and a tour in-country

[madfloridian]

12. Once one gets attention...

at a website that begins with DU and ends with ies....then it often happens.

[bemildred]

3. Look, McCaffrey is a war criminal and a drug warrior.

He is not the sort of person we want in our military command structure.

[malaise]

40. Ditto

I detest the bastard

[JohnyCanuck]

4. Can you imagine the reaction if Iraqi forces had slaughtered US troops

in such a disgusting, criminal and barbaric fashion after a ceasefire had been agreed upon? At the very least, it would have been war crimes trials all around for the Iraqi generals a la Nuremberg, with endless accompanying coverage in the media of the immoral and barbaric tactics of the treacherous Iraqi generals. Of course this would only apply if they were still alive after the US had done bombing the shit out of everything that moved in Iraq. K&R

[merh]

19. Not only did the US slaughter a retreating army on the Highway of Death

it violated the UN resolutions, the cease fire, when it instituted the "no fly zones".

[Hanse]

5. You still find a lot of people who still applaud this action.

Last time I ran into one, I asked him to give me a good explanation on the difference between Iraqi troops who invaded Kuwait for their oil, and U.S. troops who invaded Iraq for the same reasons.

He couldn't provide me with one.

[madfloridian]

6. It was considered an heroic action back then by most people.

Topic of conversation at the teachers' lunch table, filled with pride. I had learned to keep my mouth pretty much shut by then. And by the time Jeb took office, I never said much at all. I slipped a few times and got warned by my principal to watch it.

This is Jeb Country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Won't be popular amongst these parts

but there are two points to be made

War is hell... read that again WAR IS HELL

And as much as I hate to say it... under the strictures of the laws of land warfare this was a valid military target

Now whether it was necessary is exactly what some of the other officers in the staff are having trouble with... and that is what the debate should be about, and I am betting is about in places like the National Staff College.

People should look for some photos of the kill zones during operation cobra... they look the same way, except in black and white, and those were German Troops, not Iraqi troops

Those were more necessary as we were trying to keep a full german army from leaving to fight another day, but to those who understand about war. this boils down to war is hell... and many officers have second thoughts of what could have, should have, years later.


Oh and I am sure those who had to dig the mass graves and clean up the mess are having nightmares to these days... and so are the officers who gave the order to execute. What you are readying is exactly that.

When we are in our comfy seats, ten years removed, we can argue about the horrors.

Oh and by the by... back in 1991 Newsweek and TIME did publish those photos. There is one that they repeated in one of the few movies done about the war. This is a photo of the burned out shell of a truck, blistered paint all over, and the charred remains of an Iraqi soldier, his head backwards, and all you could see was the mouth open, rather the jaw, and white teeth on the charred flesh. Why I remember that one? As a medic who went to San Juanitco (an explosion in Mexico City in 1984) when I saw that image, all I can say is that I smelled it... that is a smell you never forget and some photos can bring it back like you were there. In that case, I came across a very similar image to that one in Mexico City, after that explosion. So to say that they didn't publish photos that were quite graphic, yes, yes they did, and not only limited to foreign editions, like they sometimes do.

[madfloridian]

8. I was mostly referring to the TV.

They started out eagerly, then they sort of backed off when they realized.

Yes, it is controversial. But it shouldn't be. Not at a Democratic forum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. American TV never shows anything graphic

it is kind of instructive to watch local news on both the Anglo channels and the Hispanic channels

Same event... the anglo ones will show no bodies, no blood, nothing controversial... the hispanic channels, just like Mexico, will not only go there, but are expected to do so.

I think to a point it is how our very sterile culture has developed

[JohnyCanuck]

13. Nice try, but I still think it was a war crime.

(Not that it makes any difference in the great scheme of things).

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. President Bush responded immediately from the White House saying (through spokesman Marlin Fitzwater) that "there was no evidence to suggest the Iraqi army is withdrawing. In fact, Iraqi units are continuing to fight. . . We continue to prosecute the war." On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day. Again, Bush reacted, calling Hussein's announcement "an outrage" and "a cruel hoax."

Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.

The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves the Bush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.

Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers.

SNIP

U.S. field commanders gave the media a carefully drawn and inaccurate picture of the fast-changing events. The idea was to portray Iraq's claimed withdrawal as a fighting retreat made necessary by heavy allied military pressure. Remember when Bush came to the Rose Garden and said that he would not accept Saddam Hussein's withdrawal? That was part of it, too, and Bush was involved in this cover up. Bush's statement was followed quickly by a televised military briefing from Saudi Arabia to explain that Iraqi forces were not withdrawing but were being pushed from the battlefield. In fact, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers around Kuwait had begun to pull away more than thirty-six hours before allied forces reached the capital, Kuwait City. They did not move under any immediate pressure from allied tanks and infantry, which were still miles from Kuwait City.

This deliberate campaign of disinformation regarding this military action and the war crime that it really was, this manipulation of press briefings to deceive the public and keep the massacre from the world is also a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right of the people to know.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. You may want to call it a war crime, but it is not one

having had to actually ENFORCE that silly thing called the Geneva Convention I know you are off by quite a bit

The war in 1991 was carried out to send the Iraqis out of Kuwait... it was a LEGAL war, unlike the current conflict that is starting to meet all kinds of criteria for illegal war

That was a column of UNIFORMED personnel, so they were LEGAL TARGETS, as they were still technically in the fight... now if they had surrendered... that is another story, and they have to be protected, fed, taken to the rear, et al. But they had not. In that sense it is not that different from the US Army destroying the Lehr Division at the end of Op. Cobra. And yes the photos look the same way, and the area smelled of putrefaction for months after the fact. We know that during Op Cobra the Germans lost probably 20K troops, and we captured tens of thousands... is that a war crime too?

Now was this bombing necessary? Probably not, most likely not... but it does not meet ANY definition under international law for war crimes... and yes, the terms matter...

Now if you want to speak of whether this was moral, that is a whole different discussion. And under the intent of international law, it wasn't, since this was a broken enemy. But you could make the same argument about Op. Cobra... then again... there is no morality in war either. BUt that is exactly the arguments that those US Army Officers who are critical of it are making. Theirs are not legal arguments, but moral ones... a huge difference, and another layer of meaning and intent.

As to the current conflict, we are having more and more evidence as to its true nature... and that is starting to be more closely aligned to a war crime. See Nuremberg Indictments for reasons why, and I have been saying that perhaps some day these guys will be prosecuted for actual war crimes.

I know it is not popular to say this... but words do have very strict meanings... and people bandy around the term war crime without actually understanding the actual LEGAL meaning of the words. By the way, under the very strict terms of war crimes... the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and others at Guantamo Bay do meet the strict definition of war crime. So does the Bush Doctrine

Then again, what would people who've actually dealt with these things for real know about it? And I did, for ten years... I am familiar with the laws of land warfare, as it was a professional hazard... And I did many an interview of another civil war, we caused, in CA of many a survivor. There were war crimes committed in CA against civilian populations that were never, and will probably never will be prosecuted. The major difference, the people I interviewed were not members of any regular or irregular army wearing a uniform.

By the way, understanding what the term means and that is has a very strict meaning does not mean one justifies it. Oh sorry, in the world view of anything we do is a war crime, understanding this probably means I am applauding US Forces :sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

15. So what this general said was wrong? From the OP

"One critic is the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Unit, Lieutenant General James Johnson, who will later say: “There was no need to be shooting at anybody. (The Iraqis) couldn’t surrender fast enough. The war was over.” Johnson, whose unit is deployed near McCaffrey’s, will add, “I saw no need to continue any further attacks.” Explaining why McCaffrey ordered the assault on his own authority, Johnson will say that McCaffrey—widely perceived as CENTCOM commander General Norman Schwarzkopf’s favorite general—“does what he wants to do.”

I don't think I am arguing it was a war crime....I am arguing it was virtually a massacre that was applauded by so many.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. It was unnecessary, and under the intent of International Law

they should have been let go

And that is a moral argument and not a legal one... as legally they were still a very valid military target

:-)

And yes, LtGen Johnson was right, the Air Force\ Navy package should have loitered at 10K feet, just to make sure they were on their way out.

Let them go. The moment they crossed the border, go back to refuel

There were similar arguments made about the Lehr Division in 1944 as well, well after the war was over.

Those officers involved in those messes usually argue about them after the fact... it is the nature of the beast, as some of them can't sleep very well... even in modern warfare.

I should add, because of the nature of the work things that bring emotion, such as massacre, are words that are left for their strictest meaning... and usually reserved for civilian populations, see Sabra\ Shatilla, the south of Mexico in 1984, the Killing Fields in Cambodia... Rwanda... some sections of Somalia.... even today...

[madfloridian]

21. Well, I just am saying what I think. I am not military. I think as a human being.

So be it. People can agree, disagree, but it sure looked like we killed about 37,000 people there. Sounds pretty bad to me.

I don't know how to say it nicely, as there was nothing nice about it.

At least most of the military spokesmen in the article disputed McCaffrey.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Not that it is better but even the numbers of death are disputed

of how many people actually died there... and the 37K is the high number. There is this little problem that the Iraqis used that one to ahem tell people that relatives disappeared under the american bombs, who tired to surrender, or just run away...

And there were those lost during the revolt in the south that we stood on the side... for which George Bush should burn in hell, with his son, but again some folks disappeared there.

How many people died between the last week of the war (official war) and the uprising will never truly be known but it is in tens of thousands.

And nobody is saying it was nice... or moral if you choose to look at morality (and senior officers do, after the fact, every time), but it was legal.

War is not nice, and you are right, as a civilian it looks like a massacre...

But to those who are charged with actually looking at this dispassionately... or as close as you can... words have meaning.

That said, the way it was portrayed in the US Media was pure sheer propaganda, and I hate to say it, next war, and yes, the US will go to war again... when or how is a matter of time.. the US Press will do the same... AGAIN

And the people seem to never learn the lesson

I remember when two young men disappeared from a class in 1990... they were Officers in the USMC, doing some school work, and some folks were going over how wonderful they got to serve their country and all the honor and glory that goes with thatl. My instructor turned to me, since he knew what I did at the time on the side, and we had a quiet chuckle. One of those students asked us, so what would you know?

Teach qietly told him... I was a Technical Sergeant in the US Air Corp, a photographer, I got to fly over Japan on March 9, 1945... that got the class to be very silent... then another one asked me... what about you?

I'm a medic south of the border with the red cross. One of my duties was to interview many a survivor of Central America for refugee status... heard of the nuns who were killed in El Salvador? One nodded... anybody ever told you that they were raped first, repeatedly?

So they are going to war.... a third said, with a lot less enthusiasm.

"Yes, but if they come home, they won't be the same." And then the teach started "Johnny got his gun." That made the point to these three. It made them very reflective on what they were watching... I asked the teach how did he know I'd be able to answer their questions. He said that hearing the accounts is as bad as being there. Of course, he was wrong. Some years later the war on drugs got really hot ... and I became a target... never a warm fuzzy... but due to those interviews I had to learn very fast to control emotions and to quickly distinguish between the moral outrage, and the crime. And that is what to a point we need to do. There were real crimes committed, alas not that operation. Encouraging the Shia to rise after the ceasefire is closer to an international crime, for example, than this ever was.

[madfloridian]

25. Wait, are you calling their retreat on that road an uprising?

I am sorry but I can't go there with you.

Yes, words have meaning. So does raining down the power of our military on a retreating army.

We will have to agree to disagree. I am only a civilian and a retired teacher. I am sure you know more about war than I do.

BUT I have a highly developed sense of right and wrong.

There was nothing right about this, and I will use the word massacre even if it hurts the feelings of the "objective" military.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. No the UPRISING that we caused among the shia

what was it a week or two later?

The one that we did nothing to support?

But there were tens of thousands of people who disappeared during that whole mess... and I know it was covered by the US media for all of two days, best case

Why nobody knows exactly how many people died between the official end of the war and the end of the uprising

Here you go, from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

[madfloridian]

28. Yes, Bush, Sr. told them to rise up....and then he let them die.

Nothing moral about that either. I remember that well.

It was hard trying to teach during that time. Our school did not have updated maps, too expensive...we had to improvise.

We had to watch every word we said as teachers.

There is nothing right or moral about either invasion....

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. And that my dear is actually closer to a war crime than the highway of death

since we meddled in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation by encouraging a revolt... that is easier to prosecute, if the will is there... alas we are still the superpower...

But war, I like to keep repeating this, is not about morality. Never has been, never will

The closest we ever came to a just war, fitting the just war doctrine, was WW II, due to the holocaust, and that was by accident purely, not by intent... oh all the inside baseball info about how we ignored the camps and ghettos as long as possible.

As to what makes a war right or wrong? No war is right or wrong... and the story is written by the winners....

So I am hoping GW is held accountable and that some day those people who encouraged my war (central america) are brought to some form of justice... and if hell exists, they will burn... I don't believe in hell, or heaven for that matter. Too much to believe that any god allows this crap to happen.

But this country needs a truth and reconciliation commission. Why? Most people don't even know what we are talking about... central america? The shia revolt, whatever, what's on teevee tonight? Celtic women (BTW, I LOVE THEM)

[madfloridian]

31. Some wars may be more excusable than others...

But there is morality involved.

I did not even mention war crimes in my post...I doubt anyone will ever be held accountable because both parties went along for the ride, so to speak.

There will always be wars, but they are seldom justified.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. And due to the nature of the beast, there is no morality involved

there can't be

Though shall not kill is replaced with.. kill or be killed

As many vets will tell you, there is no honor, and there is no glory, except perhaps for those who don't come home.

And we are finding something more from studies of chimps, war may be part of our code and animal nature... a horrible conclusion, but even our closest cousins go to war... and organize for it.

Why I have no hope that humanity will survive to reach to the stars...

A sad one.. I know

[madfloridian]

34. I associate the morality part with our leaders more than those who must follow orders.

They don't have much choice. Our leaders do.

SO yes, they are often not acting in moral ways.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. It was funny, watching a comment on foreign affairs

somebody said something very correct, and I went, this is Murican TV right?

Those leaders we "choose" are not there for your or my benefit, but theirs.

And that it is high time Obama understands that

Gee, talking head, that applies to the US president as well... whoever is the US President is there to advance his (someday her) interests, and we are in it for the ride.

As to the ones who follow orders. I don't give them a free pass unless they are E-3 and bellow

Every Trooper and Officer receives training in the rules of land warfare and what is a crime, Yes, those who engaged in torture KNEW those were illegal orders, for example. KNowing military culture though, that is why Specialist Darbe is such a hero... though not to his fellows.

[conscious evolution]

42. We will get to the stars.

Unfortunately we will carry our propensity for war with us.

I agree with you on Basra Highway. Not a war crime.
And not that many casualties either.The first strikes,targeting the front and rear of the column to bottle them up,accounted for most casualties.After that,the Iraqis got as far from that highway as possible as fast as they could haul ass away on foot,leaving the vehicles behind.Our pilots were,to put it bluntly, basicly having target practice on unmanned equipment.

[kath]

49. I don't even like to call what we're doing in Iraq a war-it's an illegal**invasion and occupation**

of a nation that posed no threat to us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Technically, when it is all said and done, it is an illegal war of expansion

Article one of Nuremberg

It is a crime against peace, article two

Problem is... as long as we are the superpower (not for long) nobody will dare prosecute our people. In fact ,one way to deal with this, gonig back to the seeds of this... is a truth and reconciliation commission. Why? Most americans don't understand what has been done in their name, and this is not the first war with war crimes of the modern era... either.

[iconicgnom]

102. There might be some prosecution under Nuremberg laws if

the average american citizen both understood the concept "morality" and applied it to the international dealings of their elected gov't, as well as to their own personal dealings. But that would be to recognize their country as being equal under international law, and that seems to be anathema to the american conscience.

This seems strange to me, because it seems contrary to the laws of freedom. By "the laws of freedom" I don't mean laws cast by George W. Bush, designed to legitimize his initiation of war and his initiation of torture, all of which is based in transparently specious reasoning. By "the laws of freedom" I mean laws intended to be in accords with universal rules of morality, or ethics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. Nuremberg had zero to do with morality and all to do with ethics

and the laws of war and acceptable behavior during WW II.

After that, agreed

But it had zero to do with morality

Once again, war has zero to do with morality... and that includes the Just War Doctrine, which is an ETHICAL standard on how to pursue war, not a moral one.. this goes to the XVI century and is the basis for much of our modern laws of land warfare.

Sorry... dealt with this for ten years... for real... not imagined, for real.

And I am all for prosecuting the Bush Administration on at least Indictment one and two of the General Indictments at Nuremberg... but once again, those are not moral but ethical

That would be exercising agreesive war

Planning for war... (Crimes against peace)

Given the PNAC Project I think those two could be proven easily, by a half capable prosecutor. I just don't expect that to happen anytime soon, partly because the Murican people are still in denial, and the world community does not want to come after a fully armed nuclear power... so I am willing to compromise and require a truth and reconciliation commission going to at least 1979...

Don't worry, most people confuse the two concepts. That is all. But morality does not necessarily equal ethics.

Now here is a piece of trivia which most folks don't know either. Do you know why Doenitz served zero days for exercising unrestricted submarine warfare? (Violated the Geneva Convention and protocols of '28) Because Nimitz said that he did give the same orders for unrestricted warfare in the Western Pacific... hence if they were going to send Doenitz to the slammer, they should send him to the slammer. The court dropped the charges.

[barbtries]

37. war is wrong

death by warfare is murder by proxy. the only two certain outcomes of war are death and destruction. hopefully as the millennia go on humanity will evolve past the point of war. No war is right or wrong - i could not disagree with you more strenuously. all wars are wrong. it may be necessary to engage in war, but that is because someone somewhere did something very wrong.

peace.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. No argument there, war is wrong...

but it might be coded into our genes from chimp studies and others.

And if it is... we many never have time for it to evolve out of the species...given that this would take at least hundreds of thousands of years of natural evolution and willful breeding programs.

Of course we could try to genetically engineer it out of the species. That would be a hell of a short story... and I wonder if there was a reason for it to begin with. Chimp studies point to wars coming when there is a scarcity of food and water, or females.

Food for thought huh?

That said, even though it is wrong, at times it is necessary...much less than our leaders (who have never gone to war themselves) think it is.

[Usrename]

60. Sounds to me as if you endorse the Schwarzkopf Doctrine.

"We don't do body counts."

Do you really believe in that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Gee, lets clarify...

it was not shwartzie that came up with that one... his predecessors at the war college after the mess in the Nam.. and when it comes to STRICTLY military personnel there was a valid reason for that one... mostly the numbers game done during Vietnam and what some squad commanders colloquially referred as numbers inflation.

That said... it is not for me to endorse it nor... but having a clue of what happens when a high explosive hits the human flesh I also know that things reach the point where you can only approximate casualties... and never actually know the right number... the reason why they did not do casualties during the 1991 war is quite simply that during Nam they were counting pieces as separate bodies, never mind that in many cases all those pieces came from the same body. Why they don't do them today? Political... and as a RED CROSS worker, we need numbers as close to the real civilian casualty numbers as we can get to. Not counting military personnel killed in combat is not a requirement... though it is considered a nice thing to do for the other side. Now not counting civilian casualties is a no-no... and civilians should be accounted to the last under the Conventions of War we have signed... live, death, refugee, does not matter. You need to find out where they are... and if they died, how they died.

Can you distinguish between the two? I know I not only can, but had to.

Now his doctrine was not the not doing body counts, but rather the POWELL doctrine, which until Vietnam was American policy

Attack in overwhelming force with at least a 3:1 advantage, the preferred is 5:1 advantage.

Did I mention that went back all the way to CLASSIC warfighting tactics and techniques of the modern era? Oh and that precedes the modern US Military in some ways? I mean Tsun Tzu in the ARt of War, and Musashi in the Five Rings both talked about attacking with overwhelming force to help reduce casualties on your side. Google both of them... see how old they are.

[madfloridian]

71. War is good.

Killing mass numbers is a percentage game....best played by experts.

I have seen 3 people in this thread excuse this massacre on technical military grounds.

Then we went back in 2003 and killed many more of them.

Yes, you are right. War is good.

Do I use the sarcasm tag or the :cry:

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Did I say it was good? And understanding WHY things happens

does not mean they are correct.

Sorry if I can make that distinction

And I am very sorry you cannot

I am also very sorry you cannot distinguish between a LEGAL war (1991) and what is quite possibly a war of aggression. Even though we know it is...we still lack the evidence that would stand in a court of law. That said... that evidence is increasingly coming up from the woodwork... and when it does become irrefutable I am willing to bet that the world community will not bring those responsible to a court of law...a hell of a precedent, and perhaps the end to our systems of laws of land warfare... aka everything will be allowed now.

Those laws make the hell a little less hellish, that is all

[Usrename]

79. You are not only wrong, I think you are wrong-headed to boot.

The Swartzkopf Doctrine.

In his 1992 autobiography, "It Doesn't Take a Hero," retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf strongly agreed with that view. When his superiors asked for a body count during the invasion of Grenada in 1983, he responded, "We need to stay away from this body count business. It caused us terrible trouble in Vietnam and it will cause us terrible trouble here." Regarding his experience in Vietnam and the body counts used then, Schwarzkopf wrote, "I felt like I'd been a party to a bureaucratic sham." Body counts were not used during the first Gulf War, when U.S. forces were under Schwarzkopf's command.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/11/body_counts/index1.html

In the Eye of the Storm: The Life of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

http://books.google.com/books?id=mM6WKYZRcDMC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22swartzkopf+%22+body+counts&source=web&ots=r6bd7jvJRI&sig=UP2-HjRgvl1HofMv98jsNSzuKJs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA270,M1

Schwarzkopf was the first commander that I have ever heard of to issue a specific order to prohibit any body count, and he did so over this particular "Road of Death" massacre.

I remember it distinctly at the time; he ordered that no one be allowed to count the bodies. It happened.

The Schwarzkopf Doctrine was used once again, domestically this time, during shame and horror of the Katrina aftermath, when it was illegal for the press to attempt to visit morgues, and also most recently after Hurricane Ike.

Contrast this with the pressing DEMAND to know the names and biographies of everyone who perished in the twin towers. The SAME Red Cross was involved in all three incidents, but cleary the propaganda incentives were different in each case.

Also, contrast this whole process of not counting bodies with what happened in Iraq after Baghdad fell. The VERY FIRST priority there was NOT to look for weapons of mass destruction, but instead to dig up mass grave to do BODY COUNTS.

You are wrong about this. You couldn't be more wrong. You have been had.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Yes war college, and under the CONVENTIONS OF WAR

we are not required to keep a body count of MILITARY personnel

You know the distinction between civilian and military right?

YOU DO KNOW IT, DON'T YOU?

And not doing body counts was a decision that Shwartzie did not make himself... he was not SENIOR enough during Grenada to make that decision... he was NOT SENIOR ENOUGH. That decision was above his pay grade.

But I am sure you KNOW how the bureocracy called a MILITARY works... and how Field Colonels and One Star Generals might make sugestions regarding this, but they do NOT make that decision.

And he told you that he did not want to do it because of Nam, so exactly how am I wrong headed and do point to me WHERE in the Geneva Convention does it state I need to keep track of Military Casualties... I could point to you. on the other hand, where it states that you need to keep track of CIVILIAN casualties

By the by, the US military is NOT doing body counts today either, for either... one they are correct, the other, they are not

[Usrename]

81. I understand what you are saying, but you are WRONG.

There is a difference between our military not doing body counts and them ordering that no one be permitted to do them.

You do understand this difference, don't you?

You do understand that neither the indiginous folks nor the international press were allowed to do body counts on the "road of death," don't you?

You do know that the press was not allowed to do any body counts after Katrina, don't you?

You do know that you are spewing propaganda, don't you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Several points are in order

1.- The highway of death nobody did any body counts since this was a MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST MILITARY PERSONNEL WEARING A UNIFORM

2.- After Katrina there were body conts done, by both national and international press, they were not accurate, on purpose, and you are comparing apples and oranges, since last time I checked Katrina was a NATURAL DISASTER not a war zone. By the way, having seen how it is done, do you want me to tell you how you could hide hundreds, if not outright thousands of civilian casualites in an incident like Katrina? By the by, having had had a hand in getting INTERNATIONAL AIDE on teh ground by day three (them Canucks) I do have a clue of what was going on there better than some folks. By day six we even had Mexican troops in country helping, not that most Americans know this... I guess more propaganda, RIGHT? right.

3.- Shwartzie may have told you that it was his decision at Granada, the first place we didn't do body counts, he wasn't high enough in the food chain to make that decision. So he may claim whatever, he wasn't high enough. Have any clue how this works? Free clue, if you are wearing an eagle or a one star on your shoulders you do not make the decision of a three star, which is the pay grade for that one.. as I remember he was a staff officer, therefore in place to MAKE that sugestion though... having a clue how the military works, helps. Oh and taking the blame means the senior officer who actually signed the order had a sacrifical lamb in place for a CYA if it went badly.

Now please show me where in the conventions of war does it say we are rwquired to keep body counts for enemy MILITARY personnel? Have fun looking for them... after all we are required to keep track of every POW... but not the dead, the latter is counsidered a courtesy and why we used to do things like collect dogtags during WW II, turned over to the German military AFTER the end of hostilities.

And do also tell me, where exactly those orders were a war crime, and if you can find a court to even hear the case I will be highly ammused given that the highway of death met every technical definiton of a rout.

As to civilian media doing a body count... given the looting going on in the place, I can see why they were not allowed in... oh and that looting included US troops. But I am sure you will call that propaganda too. Or the fact that some bodies were burned to dust... you do know how high fuel burns, don't you?

[Usrename]

85. I had no idea. This would make me wrong and you right.

Can you give me a hint of where the list showing the names and addresses of the Katrina victims is? I wasn't aware that one had been prepared.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Two places you can go look for them

The International Red Cross, the American Red Cross, they both have services where they took names and have searches for people who were taken from one place to another

They are far from complete (and there are many reasons for that), but they do exist.

The ICRC has that service every disaster and the American Red Cross should have it online... or in a searchable format

And as I said, for many reasons, they are far from complete. Oh and the camp that the Mexican Army ran... in Texas, they had to keep lists too. So probabaly the Mexican Red Cross has a list too... for those people they handled.

This is disaster management 101... and those lists are a nightmare to keep in the middle of a disaster

Here is one of those things at the ARC

http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_333_4963,00.html

Not the searchable database, they get decicate about it, but they helped 75m people... they have a list

And fox has links to the lists

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168455,00.html

[Usrename]

88. NO, NO, NO! Who died in Katrina? What are their names? Like this!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/

Do ya foller?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. There are lists too

kept by local officials ... and the red cross and the ICRC... the victim locater includes the list of the dead.

Just like the MASSIVE database created after WWII and the holocaust by the ICRC. (IN the case of Katrina the list at the ICRC was created since we went international)

Here is the rub to access any Red Cross list. You need to be a relative

Now local ones, kept as best as they could... those are public record... and held by the Coroner's office.

Usually they are cross referenced though, so if a person is listed in one, it will be listed in the other... tech has gotten that good.

But the lists are kept, and in disasters you have an added problem, who is the person you just found, especially when you are left with skeletal remains.. so the local coroner lists will have a lot of john doe and jane doe... which sucks for many families.

Now if there is any suspicion of foul play, beyond nature getting ugly in this case, then they go for a full forensics investigation that will include things like victim ID. I am hoping that in decades to come our forensics will get CHEAP and good enough that a piece of bone will be enough to ID every Joe Doe and Jane Doe, give them a name, and return them to their families for proper burial

[Usrename]

92. Here's the rub...

...as long as you keep catapulting the fascist propaganda, it will continue to affect your cognitive powers until, at some point, you become a fascist.

I guess you have responded to my initial question, and it seems I was correct. You do believe in the Schwarzkopf Doctrine.

I understand why you continue to make strawman arguments (that I somehow claimed Schwarzkopf gave any orders in Granada, or that I somehow think that we are required under some article of war to do body counts on the enemy) and want to try and avoid focusing on the basic fundamental point that doing, or not doing (as the case may be), body counts is a potent form of propaganda.

The same Red Cross was involved in 9/11, Katrina, and Ike. And you can honestly say that you STILL don't get it? Why dig up bodies buried ten years ago in Iraq? What was the purpose?

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Why did up bodies buried ten years ago?

WAR CRIMES, and their investigation, and they were BURIED fifteen to twenty years ago, during the Iran Iraq war. Those were IRANIAN dead... and some of their families FINALLY got notification thanks to THAT investigation. But I am sure you knew that... try BBC next time.


And here is the real rub

You were shown in many ways from here all the way to Sunday how you are wrong, all the way tho what lists are kept, and you still insist on some assinine thing about not counting casualties is part of the Schwartzkopf doctrine

Some more education is in order

Who authorized Shartzies final plan in 1991? Colin Powell, as JCOS Commander... hence if you are going to call something a doctrine, use the correct one, it wasn't Schwartzkopf, but POWELL's and that is to use overwhelming force to reduce your own casualties. That doctrine goes well before the rise of Classical Fascism, all the way to ancient Greece, in the Western Way of War.

So if you will I am catapulting either Spartan or Athenian Propaganda. Rather take Athens though, the prayer to the death is one of my favorite pieces (of true propaganda) from the period.

The problem is that people in this country have NO FUCKING CLUE of what they are talking about, and when they are shown the REALITY, cannot accept it, since it shows that things are far more shades of gray than they are willing to accept.

So you ar one of those folks who believes the US Military cannot do anything right? Just like your counterparts in the right think they cannot do anything wrong?

I showed you... and I have been very respectful and TECHNICAL in this... and how it works. But I guess it really does not matter, and yes, you are wrong. There are lists, of the dead, from Katrina... just because CNN does not have an online memorial does not mean there are no lists.

[Usrename]

94. OK, riddle me this...

Who, before Schwarkopf, ever issued a general order prohibiting any body counts?

Give me a name. And please stop with this Powell Doctrine strawman. His is the doctrine of overwhelming force and has NOTHING to do with this discussion. You could just as easily make the strawman argument to call it the Bush Doctrine, since Powell worked for Bush. Right? Let's not get too silly. Try and stay focused for a second.

War crimes are ALLEGED in BOTH cases. In the "road of death" story, reliable claims have been made that the dead soldiers had surrendered, were running away from the vehicles and weapons with their hands up, while they were being strafed from the air. IIRC, there were claims of airborne video that corroborates this allegation.

So what is your point? Maybe it's time to step into the real world, and try to back away from the propaganda wars.

on edit>

The bodies had been buried ten years ago at the time they were dug up. Read more carefully.

And, show me the list. Show me the list. Show me the list.

Time to put up or shut up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. What part of Grenada was above his pay grade ar you again

missing?

We are done I think...

As to the road of death, alleged crimes that NO INTERNATIONAL COURT ever took since there was no evidence of a war crime

Can you understand that?

The package SHOULD have staid at 10K waiting until they crossed the border... that is the ETHICAL argument, but the order to bomb the living daylights out of this retreating force was not illegal, and was not unlike orders given in other wars by other active combatants.

That is the TECHNICAL REALITY of the matter. One that people on the left, at least some, who most likely have never served or are familiar with International Law CANNOT ACCEPT on ideological grounds.

By the way, you should know we didn't count the dead during the War of 1812, the Mexican war, or for that matter the War of Independence

We started counting bodies during the civil war, and not all the time. And we truly never counted bodies, really during the Indian wars

Oh and to add, VIETNAM was an aberration on how troops were ordered to count bodies, and do body counts for the brass to show results, why? IT WAS a classic guerrilla war. But I am sure you knew that

[Usrename]

96. You've gone completely round the bend.

Too many strawman arguments to deal with here.

Can you name another commander, besides our buddy here, who ever gave a general order that prohibited body counts?

That seems to be your argument, that they all do it, and have always done it. Give an example.

And what the... what does Granada have to do with anything at all. You keep raising that strawman over and over. I have made NO claims at all about Granada. Get over it. Try and focus.

Can you focus on the discussion? Or will you keep making bizarre claims about war crimes and how we've always massacred people in every war, that it is commonplace and should not ruffle any feathers.

I think you are over the edge.

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Your so-called straw man argument is the technical reality

the one that on ideological grounds you cannot accept

Try readying some international law, and educating yourself

You may want to start with the laws of land warfare.

Your ideology prevents you from seeing the ugly reality that there are ETHICS in war, but there is no morality, and that there are laws of warfare, and that in this case they were not violated, or WHERE are the charges?


Oh and you asked about body counts? Relatively modern phenomena going back to the battle of Soferino, a battle in Northern Italy, where Jean Henry Dunnant organized local medics from the Austrian and French armies to assist the wounded, with civilians... the origin of that modern law that you think is written in stone... google it up. That is the origin of the Red Cross.

But for god sakes, not even the 1948 conventions prohibit the attack on retreating forces in wartime. And they considered it... and if they had done that, then it would have been a crime. Oh the reason, the Falaise gap among others.

Now we are done, ideology is stronger than facts, that you will again call strawmen... unfrigging amazing

First there are no lists kept for Katrina...

Yes, yes they are, here you go

So now you go back to your original argument that is wrong at multiple levels...

Have a good life...

I don't like ideologues from all sides, I really do...

And go ahead, call me a fascist for actually getting this... since I did this for ten years. You know breath and live the Conventions of Land Warfare

[Usrename]

98. See how your argument keeps shifting?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? That may be one of your cognitive issues. You keep accusing me of taking positions that I never took.

You say that it's proper to dig up bodies because war crimes were alleged. You made that argument, not me. And then I said something to the effect that war crimes were also alleged in the "road of death." Do you dispute the fact that war crimes were alleged?

What is the ideology that you think I subscribe to? What facts are you presenting that I am disputing?

Here's what is happening. You make a lot of claims and when I ask you to produce facts to support them, you change the subject. And every fact that I have claimed is not in dispute at all.

Now, once again, who first gave a general order that body counts would not be permitted. If it wasn't Schwarzcopf (like you keep claiming) then it must have been someone else. Who was it? Do you actually know, or are you making stuff up? Perhaps due to your ideology you are forced to invent things, things that are not true. Things that are not facts.

Where is the Katrina list that you CLAIM I can google? Where is it? Or did you invent that too? Maybe to support a certain ideology.

What FACTS do I have WRONG?

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. I pointed to them, read the thread

and thanks for MORE personal attacks

cognitive capacities my ass

All these facts I have presented are part of one single argument

You are wrong... I kept answering your questions.

For god sakes, there are ideological blinders... and they aren't over mine eyes.

Oh and yes... I KNOW WHAT A STRAWMAN IS. IT IS CALLED LOGIC 101

Oh and there is more...there were also claims of war crimes at dunkirk, the falaise gap and any other major rout over the last fifty years

I see... that is also a strawman.

History is a strawman to you.

[Usrename]

103. What are these facts you that you believe in?

You argue that there is a Katrina victims list that has been published, although we cannot find it, or that someone else besides Schwarzkopf ordered that body counts would not be allowed, although we don't know who that person could be.

Are there any other facts that have been disputed here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. The lists exist. see International REd Cross, even gave you links

they exist at the local coroners and are a matter of public record

They most likely were published in the LOCAL papers...

And they are kept by tbe American Red Cross, just because CNN does not post them, does not mean they don't exist

And I am done with you

You are blind, something about horses and water comes to mind

And that is for STARTERS

Willful ignorance is not limited to the extreme right wing

[Usrename]

107. Do you honestly think that CNN has something to do with the 9/11 list?

That's just the first link that came up when I googled it. There are thousands of places where this list is published.

Another strawman?

What else should I have expected from this discussion?

And on top of this, you are calling me out? Unbelievable.

If there is such a list for the Katrina victims, as you claim, let's see some evidence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. ONCE AGAIN THE LISTS OF THE DEAD AND MISSING

EXIST

Just because they are NOT CONVENIENT for you to look for does not mean otherwise

I know, if the media does not publish a list, it does not exist

I got it now.

Unbelievable

You are told WHO and WHAT agencies, both Governmental and NGOs collected those lists, I am sure you even think the Red Cross is part of the government, it is not.

Have a good day

(And yes, this is for the readers now, who MIGHT get an education out of this)

[Usrename]

111. I guess you think using all caps is proof of something.

I think I get it. You BELIEVE in a list, so it MUST exist.

And you imply that I might be an ideologue. The irony is delicious.

You BELIEVE that someone other than Schwarzkopf ordered that bodies shall not be counted even though you have no evidence of it.

These things must be true because you BELIEVE them, and that's all the proof I should require. That and the fact that you used all caps.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. No I know it exists. The coroners offices compiled them

the missing persons lists that both the ARC and the ICRC collected are part of it

It is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in any disaster... sorry, worked many of them for real too.. So I happen to have quite the operational understanding as to how this works and classifications for people put into these lists. It is not theory for me... but for you, if it is is not easily accessible (yes the coroners lists are public record, you could go request them, if you wish FOIA them) then they don't exist... your mind is made up.


I told you who got them going.

Why it was done, in case you think it is just because, it is a LEGAL requirement

Provided you with links as to some of the lists, which also include missing and dead... nature of the beast...

Leading horses to water and making them drink comes to mind... you can lead them, but you can't make them drink.

I have to say it, it is you who needs to believe that these lists were not put together... it is part of your philosophy and the tinfoll hattery that they didn't do it. There were many errors made during the disaster, but lists of the dead and the wounded, those are anal. Now people sent out of area, that was one of the mistakes and why the ICRC got their lists going. (Again that pesky operational knowledge) And some mistakes were made on purpose, IMHO... or out of cowardice, again that operational knowledge.

Now like any other major disaster around the world, I doubt they are complete, but they exist. And it has nothing to do with the conspiracy nuts... after a certain point, this was a Level Four disaster... go look that up... it gets very hard to get complete lists, which is part of the nightmare for survivors, no matter where.

But perhaps screaming will get through the wax in your ears.

[Usrename]

117. Whatever.

You keep insisting that this list of the dead for Katrina or Ike exists, and that it is exactly like the list of the dead published for the 9/11 victims.

You haven't been able to come up with these lists in 3 or 4 days. Why not?

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. I gave you the linsk told you where they are

so you are the one who is full of it

Now you are extending to Ike, which is not in Geneva since we never went international on that one, even though we should

But the coroners office do compile them, just becuase they are not CONVENIENT for you to get at, does not mean they don't exist

Gave the links, now it is your belief system that requires you to belief that they don't exist

Now I doubt they are complete... but that is another matter.

[tuckessee]

29. Please tell us more about how this relates to the Panzer Lehr Division. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. The 8th air force and British fighters bombed the living crap out of them

as they pulled out of the pincer they were in, trying to cross the marne, iirc. That night 10K german soldiers (low ball) died. The rest were caught in a hellish artillery fire, as well as tank fire from closing units of Hell on Wheels. The ones that made it to the morning, once they realized they could not get out, surrendered... including one Fieldmarshall and his staff.

And well after the war some of the officers responsible, including Bradley, asked whether that was necessary, at places like the War College.

[iconicgnom]

36. "that silly thing called the Geneva Convention..." OK, I got your number. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. You mean the number of somebody that dealt with it on a daily basis for

ten years? And got to see the results of some of this?

Okie dokie... so you think that you know better than folks who've been in the thick of it?

[iconicgnom]

84. You weren't in Guantanomo. But you did scoff at the notion of morality "in war".

Yes, I've got your number.
What people like you mean with your jivetalk about war is that for the US, for americans, there are no real consequences for war crimes. So you can talk smack while your country bombs the shit out of any little country you have a mind to, that might have some resources for you to plunder, and none of you have a worry in the world that your armies and bombers might be turned back and have to fight it on your own soil, with your own cities being bombed, with your own people having to flee by the millions, to live as refugees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Like any other vet who's been there, done that, there is no morality

there are ethics and LAWS, codified in things like the Geneval Convention, those silly things that tell a commander, you sahll not attack a hospital, power station, or school. You shall give free passage to refugees, and protect them as best as you can. You shall account for them as they pass thorugh the territory you control, and feed them to the best of your abilities. This is not a moral requirement, It is a legal requirement. See the difference? You do know the difference?

I suspect not.

Why the orders given at Guantamo were ILEGAL orders, that is torturne is not kosher not only the Geneva Convention but US code. You knew that? But those orders are not moral, they are legal or ilegal, part of a LEGAL code,

But morality, there is none in a pursuit that requires you to go from though shall not kill, to kill or be killed

Now having done the RED CROSS worker, INTERVIEWING SURVIVORS of things like oh the actions of Batalion 100 in El Salvador, I have a clue about how this works. And I have been trying to explain this to people like you in the same dispassoniate and TECHNICAL manner in which I pursued my work for ten years. By the way, some of the things I heard ARE war crimes, they violate all kinds of ETHICAL and LEGAL rules, never touch morality... but you know when they will be prosecuted? Chances are NEVER.

So no, sonny, you don't have my number, perhaps I have yours... Perhaps I have interviewed survivors of wars you were personally involved in

As to the US having refugees, quite possibly, we already heve, remember Katrina? As much as people hate the term, those are INTERNAL refugees... that is the technical term

[iconicgnom]

99. pfff. you don't know what "morality" means.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Yes I do, I just know where it does not apply

now do tell me when exactly did you work for any NGO or governmental agency dealing with this?

And if you think mrality applies in war, it shows you never have... and are right now being challenged out of your middle class, the world is the way I think it is, comfort zone

[iconicgnom]

112. You don't pick and choose where morality applies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. You are confusing morality with ethics

common mistake and error made by people who have never dealt with this

I will ask again

Have you ever served in any capacity where you have to actually know your way around the conventions of war?

You mean you haven't?

Which I doubt, because if you had, you'd know that the laws of land warfare are LEGAL, based on ETHICS, not moral requirements

After all, morality at times applies, but law has a certain force that morality does not

Why it is in the Conventions of war that you shall not attack a hospital, EXCEPT if that hospital is used to house active military forces who are attacking you. At that point that hospital looses its neutrality. You may be horrified by this standard, but this is the reality in the field... And your morality has gone out the window at that point. And that is a very concrete example from many a war front, across the last fifty years. That includes ambulances, and one of the times I got shot at... my EMTs forgot that one, and loaded an armed Army Officer into one of my clearly marked rigs. We were no longer neutral. And that my dear is reality... not the fantasy that many people like to live in.

[iconicgnom]

116. you're full of shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. You are right, so is the Geneva Convention then

I gave you a VERY CONCRETE EXAMPLE... a REAL EXAMPLE

From that thing we like to call real life, and reality.

Now here you go, read this yourself...

Here you go, from the ICRC website

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

Here is more

http://www.cicr.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/EA08067453343B76C1256D2600383BC4?OpenDocument&Style=Custo_Final.3&View=defaultBody5

Now my dear THAT is reality...

No shit, sherlock

Now answer the bloody question, were you a mmeber of the armed forces, in particular a military medic, or a member of either the American Red Cross (which for some reason does not cover this in depth) or a member of the ICRC? What are your credentials?

I told you mine

I did tnis for ten years as a member of the Mexican Red Cross, some of it during this wonderful war on drugs, and yes I got shot at... told how and why... and the DA didn't file for shooting at an ambulance becuase of that little detail, neutrality and the violation of it

So cough it up, because the one who is full of shit, is you

[iconicgnom]

120. The Geneva convention makes NO distinction between "ethics" and "morality".

Nor does any other convention. You pulled that distinction out of your ass.

And your down-your-nose pissing contest citing of your credentials for bloviating about war and morality is purest horseshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. So once again, give me your credentials

I am not bloviating out of lack of practical knowledge

You, on the other hand, are.

I think we are done here... and enjoy your ignorance and wishful thinking... and hope that you NEVER ever have to deal with any of this in more than just comfy chair by your computer at home

And if this country goes into a hot civil war, all that theory will become reality FAST

[iconicgnom]

122. "And if this country goes into a hot civil war, all that theory will become reality FAST"

bwahahahaha!
I can hardly believe an adult would argue like that!
:rofl:

thanks for the entertainment!

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Yeah and I cannot believe an adult laughs at that

possibility, after all this country has never fought a civil war in its history. (Free clue, the war of independence was a civil war, the Kansas mess before the civil war, was a civil war, and well as the civil war... some historians may even argue that some cattle wars may fit that description, yep crazy... never happened in the history of this country... really)

And this country is exceptional and will never fight one either. Oh never mind the history... see serious people think about these things... unserious people who don't know their own history laugh about it.

I guess you are in the latter category

Thanks for showing your ignorance at MULTIPLE levels

[iconicgnom]

124. oh thank you, God!

So now you think our initial disagreement is about whether or not some country has a civil war or not!
That if it did, or could, it would somehow prove something about ... what, exactly? An assertion that there is no morality in war, and that part of the reason why I question the truth of this ridiculous assertion is that I don't make a distinction between 'ethics' and 'morality'?

I'm just not "credentialed" enough to understand your distinction.
I'm sure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. YOu can question whatever you want

you are the one laughing about certain things, not me, and insulting as well, why if you want to insult, sure, I can play that game as well... and you are willfully ignorant.


But lets try to explain this to you as a baby

Why is it that there is no morality in war, because it cannot be enforced.

You need laws, those are ethics based... not morality based, especially when the arrows, hot oil or bullets start flying.

You might be shocked by this statement, but most folks, confuse ethics and morality. it happens all the time

Now from the beginning, what is the Western basis of moral tradition?

Though shall not kill... it is in that silly code of law called the ten commandments, which actually goes back to the Hammurabi Code.

Explain to the class how this moral standard can be eliminated in the environment of kill or be killed but you can still have morals and a moral code?

Why what you have is ethics, and laws, in the western tradition going back to the Just War Doctrine, which is ETHICS based, not morality based, and our first attempt to actually set a modern group of laws to protect civilians during war time, that goes back to the origin of the nation state by the way, in the sixteenth century... and I am proof positive that you know that... NOT.

Go ask people who know about his, I recommend an international jurist or two.

You may think this is ridiculous... but this is a very technical distinction, one you are having trouble with... and you are not alone

But as a serious student of history.. and more than just a dabbler in these ethics based rules... I don't discount a civil war in the US either. And if it happens again, you will have to become conversant with this, to a point, especially if you are near front lines. Oh wait, modern civil wars don't have those animals... hmmm... front lines, what the hell is that? I am sure you will tell me otherwise as well and laugh as well.

[iconicgnom]

127. I'll answer, article by article"

You say:
"you are the one laughing about certain things, not me, and insulting as well, why if you want to insult, sure, I can play that game as well... and you are willfully ignorant. "

I say:
OK, when you say that I'm "uncredentialed" unless I pass some test of yours, it isn't an insult. The insulting thing is that I don't want to play that particular game. Poor you.

You say:
"But lets try to explain this to you as a baby
Why is it that there is no morality in war, because it cannot be enforced.
You need laws, those are ethics based... not morality based, especially when the arrows, hot oil or bullets start flying.
You might be shocked by this statement, but most folks, confuse ethics and morality. it happens all the time"

I say:
In your view, ethics based laws are distinguished from morality based laws, when the arrows, hot oil or bullets start flying. I give you enormous credit for poetry, but not logic.

You say:
"Now from the beginning, what is the Western basis of moral tradition?
Though shall not kill... it is in that silly code of law called the ten commandments, which actually goes back to the Hammurabi Code."

I say:
I agree that "thou shalt not kill" goes a long way back.

You say:
"Explain to the class how this moral standard can be eliminated in the environment of kill or be killed but you can still have morals and a moral code?"

I say:
But that's the very essence of morality, or ethics. These are synonyms.

You say:

"Why what you have is ethics, and laws, in the western tradition going back to the Just War Doctrine, which is ETHICS based, not morality based, and our first attempt to actually set a modern group of laws to protect civilians during war time, that goes back to the origin of the nation state by the way, in the sixteenth century... and I am proof positive that you know that... NOT."

I say:

I think you have a lot to learn.

You conclude:
"Go ask people who know about his, I recommend an international jurist or two.

You may think this is ridiculous... but this is a very technical distinction, one you are having trouble with... and you are not alone

But as a serious student of history.. and more than just a dabbler in these ethics based rules... I don't discount a civil war in the US either. And if it happens again, you will have to become conversant with this, to a point, especially if you are near front lines. Oh wait, modern civil wars don't have those animals... hmmm... front lines, what the hell is that? I am sure you will tell me otherwise as well and laugh as well."

I say:

You haven't shown to me that there's a substantive distinction between 'ethics' and 'morality'.
You haven't shown your case.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. they are not synonyms and that is the problem

why laws are ethics based not morality based

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war. By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinction between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. For example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kind of beings have rights?"

Moral phisolophy is not morality, that is why it is so sticky.. and why it is easy to confuse

As I said, I am being very technical

But all laws, of land warfare are ethics based.

In the end, their result may be moral, but the laws themselves are not based on morality

I am sorry, but at least to me, even wihen they may be close cousins, I am a stickler for these definitions

By the way, both of these are from online dictionaries of philosophy.

Oh and I will give you an example that perhaps will make it even more confusing... and sorry for that confusion.

Society cannot under morality enforce that cousin don't marry... most societies forbid it (well except Egypt in Pharanoiuc times, and that was overlooked among royal families in Europe until the 20th century, and many close cousins did marry), but most moral codes say you can't do that. But it is not morality that is enforced when you pass those laws. Those laws are ethics based. They are endorsable at that point. (which have a good genetic basis for it)

The result is close... confusing because it looks the same and you may say I am splitting hairs, and most folks working on this do split hairs to a point. But it is ethics driving the law, not morality. And whenever we have laws based on morality we get in trouble, see race mixing laws.

The same goes with allowing refugees through a zone you control as a military commander. The UCMJ is not a moral code when it comes to that, but based on ethics and what you are expected to do... but not due to morality or humanity even. But because these laws are part of the code of conduct that you are expected to follow as a service member.

The moral rules in the UCMJ relate to your conduct while in uniform regarding your presence among civilians, especially your side... things like not engaging in sex outside marriage, things like that. But the rules regarding combat and your behavior while under fire are not moral, but ethics based. (By the way the Geneva Convention is part of the UCMJ since it became US Law after it was ratified)

There is another reason why you don't use morality, one that may seem strange to you. Our code of conduct (moral code) in the West is different from that of some people we have fought in the past. For example compare the Samurai Code of the Warrior with the code of conduct of US Troops during WW II... in some respects they were 180 from each other. Some of the abuses of POWs by the Japanese came from the very simple fact that under the Samurai code you do not surrender... so if we left this to a moral code I am betting on more horrors than we actually had on our side... but the ethical code of conduct required POWs to be treated humanely, which we have forgotten in this war on terror by the by... and that is another concrete example of why there is a difference.

Now at this point I don't expect you to see this... and as far as you are concerned there is morality in war... and that's it

[iconicgnom]

129. Hey, I'll give you a degree in hairsplitting nonsense. Free. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Bothered readying the definitions? I am sure you didn't

And with that have a good life, and I truly hope you NEVER EVAH have to get personally conversant with this

As in TRULY conversant

[iconicgnom]

132. "As in TRULY conversant"

I figure you must be the most "credentialed" person you'll ever meet. Congrats!

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. Far from it, my instructors in International law and the lawyers

for the ICRC that at times taught us these things were far more conversant with the subject, to the point that they had to remember to talk to our level of understanding and what we needed to know to work in the field competently.

I am trying to share some of this with people like you... perhaps,. wrongly, I think that sharing something that is very narrow and technical will help people to understand better why things are the way they are.

I know, I am wrong to believe this. After all this requires a willingness to learn something new and intellectual curiosity

Though that knowledge has come in handy from time to time...

[iconicgnom]

134. I'll bet! I'm so proud of you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Having fun making fun?

:-)

Amazing how little intellectual curiosity exists in your mind

Or are you so threatened by somebody who knows a little more than you in a very narrow subject?

[iconicgnom]

136. I'm agog at your ability to distinguish "moral" from "ethical" in the way that you do!

I'm agog at the brilliance of your teachers, at how well they taught you to think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Gave you dictionary definitions

so your inability to read is yours alone

Keep making fun, at this point I will be laughing AT YOU, not WITH YOU

I guess that will be difficult to comprehend as well

[iconicgnom]

138. Oh no! Not at all. That's the easiest thing for me to comprehend.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

he\she can read SOMETHING!

Not sure about the comprehension part

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. "as they were still technically in the fight"

Here is where your position crumbles. All evidence indicates that they were NOT still "in the fight" and that these soldiers were, in fact, retreating in great haste.

[Pavulon]

50. It is common practice to kill retreating enemy

it has been done by both sides in every conflict. If they were in uniform, or in a military vehicle, or vehicle being used by the military they were legal targets.

Was Dunkirk a war crime?

[madfloridian]

51. Even if a ceasefire has been called?

From the OP

"Major James Kump, the senior intelligence officer for the Army’s 124th Military Intelligence Battalion, is monitoring what he believes to be a routine retreat before McCaffrey’s units begin attacking the Iraqi forces. Kump will later recall: “I thought, I can’t believe what I’m hearing! There’s nothing going on. These guys are retreating.” Kump receives a large amount of electronic data indicating that McCaffrey is attacking a retreating force. “I had links to several intelligence systems—more than I can talk about,” he will later say. “And I’d have known if troops were moving toward us.… I knew of no justification for the counterattack. I always felt it was a violation of the ceasefire. From an integrity standpoint, I was very troubled.”

Was there a cease fire? Was the Major wrong?

Was General Johnson wrong also?

"One critic is the commander of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Unit, Lieutenant General James Johnson, who will later say: “There was no need to be shooting at anybody. (The Iraqis) couldn’t surrender fast enough. The war was over.” Johnson, whose unit is deployed near McCaffrey’s, will add, “I saw no need to continue any further attacks.” Explaining why McCaffrey ordered the assault on his own authority, Johnson will say that McCaffrey—widely perceived as CENTCOM commander General Norman Schwarzkopf’s favorite general—“does what he wants to do.”

You so casually say almost with approval that retreating enemy is always killed. Even with a ceasefire? Even with a surrender?

Really? And you approve?

[Pavulon]

52. Guess they shot first..

I will take the word of an American commander over the republican guard of Iraq retreating from Kuwait.

There was no surrender in place. A ceasefire holds if no one breaks it, if the Iraqis shot first all bets are off.

Hersch is not the greatest source, still waiting for that Iran attack from two years ago.

[madfloridian]

53. Did you even read my OP at all?

I get the impression you have your mind made up and you didn't bother to read.

Hersch is a great source, BTW....far better than McCaffrey and CNN et al.

You think it was fine to kill them all. So does another poster in this thread. That is most certainly your right to believe that.

Some people justify anything so easily.

It is your right.

[Pavulon]

54. I read your OP

I also know we killed MANY MORE than that with coordinated 155 and mlrs attacks. Those guys fought a war against a vastly superior force, in the desert. So they died.

I think there are rules that govern war. The actions we used were within those rules.

Do you have a casualty count to refer to?

[madfloridian]

55. So will you show sources that say there was no ceasefire, no attempt to surrender?

I showed sources in the military that said those attempts had been made.

I have no casualty list.

You appear to be defending McCaffrey. That is your right.

Your quote:

"Those guys fought a war against a vastly superior force, in the desert. So they died."

They weren't fighting apparently. They were retreating under a ceasefire according to some military sources.

There is no more need in arguing with you, because we will never apparently agree at all. I think morality has a place even in war....you don't seem to think so.

[Pavulon]

56. Morality is a discretionary thing

hence the need for LAW. Unless he can be proven to have violated law, 20 opinions and moral judgments are not relevant. I dont give two shits about macaffery. I do care about the ability of a commander to make a call and carry it out without some article that HAS NO SOURCE claiming he murdered 37,000 people. There is NO RELIABLE body count from that event.

There are reliable accounts of 6- 7000 man units being destroyed by combined air and ground forces in the open desert in a few hours. That was the nature of that war and a commentary on the usefulness of soviet style infantry maneuvers against a combined nato force.

That war killed lots of iraqi soldiers.

The military opinion of one commander is just that. Unless he was there his opinion is just as valid as sportscenter's analysis on a football game.

[madfloridian]

57. The opinions were of some there.

They were there.

You are coming from an entirely different place than I am.

We will not ever agree.

[iconicgnom]

140. That's the most coldblooded statement that I've read in some long, long, time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. I can distinguish between something you should do or not and war crime

Never said it was right... but it wasn't a war crime either.

Can you make that distinction? I guess you truly can't

By the way, technically it was not a massacre, but a rout

Now if you want to talk about the 1990s or the current war.. yep the terms war crime apply more and more to it. But hey, just making the very technical definition

And as an instructor of mine in International Law and Laws of Land Warfare once said... all these belly aching is for the living, not the dead. After al, dead is dead.

[madfloridian]

70. I did NOT say the word "crime" in my OP.

It was a morality based argument. But that doesn't count much at DU anymore.

I am so so so sorry I did not use technically correct words to suit you....but we MASSACRED fleeing Iraqis. Period....even many in our own military said so.

I posted a good post, but from the military point of view anything in the world goes. I am just a lowly retired teacher, so what the hell do I know.

We rained down fire on them when they were fleeing, with generals saying there was a ceasefire.

I am disappointed you tend to think it okay technically.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Once again once you let the dogs of war loose, what is the term

slip the dogs of war...morality goes out the window

We go from though shall not kill to kill or be killed.

There are ethics in war...but there is no morality

never has been and never will be

This is the reality of it and WHY we should avoid it. Why? Some folks (on all sides) have a hell of a time coming back from the kill or be killed to though shall not kill

[Thothmes]

72. Falaise Gap

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. They were retreating in what is called a rout

but they were still in the fight.

UNTIL THEY SURRENDER... or there is a ceasefire in place that has been signed et al by all sides

Sorry, if I know how that dance actually happens

As to shooting retreating troops... we did it during WW II many a times, so did the Germans. Was Dunkirk a War Crime? How about the German retreat during Operations Goodwood and Cobra? Or for crying shame, Bastogne?

It is amazing to me, but while the right has the position that the US military can do no wrong, and they have plenty of times, like any other military, the left has the 180, the US Military can do no right.

Truth be told... is most of the time, reality lies somewhere in-between these two extremes

There are no morals in war, but there are some ethics, codified in the rules of land warfare

And just as Cobra, where the OIC (Gen Bradley) had his doubts that it was needed to bomb the Lehr division to kingdom come, some of these officers are having the same problems It is called, they need to sleep at night and they either gave the orders, or followed them.

It is not a legal discussion though, but an ethical one

Should it have been done... probably not, and hindsight is wonderful... but was it a crime. no.

[mopinko]

46. war is all hell.

war is all hell. do not blame the second lieutenants and majors for killing the enemy. once a war is begun, it is the job of the soldiers to kill. we can argue some around the edges, but just because an army is retreating does not make them not the enemy.

i hate all war. we must evolve beyond it. but it is a horror. do not expect soldiers, or officers, to abhor it. it is their place in the world to fight. we just have to evolve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. I'm not the one blaming them

and you know that

I have made very technical arguments about why this was not a war crime... and also stated something else here that is not popular, there is no morality in war... never has, never will

There are laws of land warfare (which were not violated here) and there are ethics on what to do with surrendering troops.

Now if that Lt, or Major receives a clearly illegal order and still obeys it, then they are guilty just as the one that issued it

There were no illegal orders here.

[mopinko]

74. perhaps i was clumsy in my language.

i meant to agree with you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. We are all clumsy with our language from time to time

:-)

[mopinko]

78. tis difficult

to communicate only in writing without the leisure of editing, your own or others.

[merh]

17. Don't forget that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both said that Saddam

was no threat - Powell in February of 2001 and Rice in July of 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU

The media was as responsible for the war crimes as this administration, they were GWB's propoganda agency - they sold the lies.

[kath]

18. THe close-up pictures of the Highway of Death are absolutely ghastly - humans literally burnt to a

crisp. Charred black. Horrific.

[madfloridian]

47. I remember seeing those.

A few of the less ghastly were on TV, then they did not show them as often after a while. I guess they were too tragic.

[kath]

48. Heck, they won't even show soldiers' coffins on TV or in the papers, much less dead people. They do

everything possible to cover up the reality of the human costs of our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and other military adventures.
Fuckers.

Besides the "highway of death" photos, the pictures that get to me the most are the ones of the dad on the ground wailing over the coffin that contains his three dead little girls, his hands reaching up to the sky as he wails; and the picture of the dead little girl wearing a purple shawl who has both of her feet blown off, her body being tenderly carried by an older man with a beard.
Heartbreaking.

But NONE of that gets shown by US corporate McPravda...

[madfloridian]

20. Video footage from 1991 of the destruction....pretty mild.

From CBC


http://archives.cbc.ca/war_conflict/1991_gulf_war/topics/593-3127/

[balantz]

22. Mass murderers hold reign over this country and over the world. n/t

[balantz]

24. Remember some of CNNs fake news from that "war"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=247932&mesg_id=247932

[Suich]

26. First time I ever heard "collateral damage" was from

Pete Williams in 1991 or 1992.

"He also served as spokesman to the Pentagon. While in that position, Williams was named Government Communicator of the Year in 1991 by the National Association of Government Communicators."

...from Wikipedia. At first I thought it meant things like buildings, vehicles, etc. It took a long time before I figured out what really it meant.

:cry:

[barbtries]

38. yeah. dead people

he coined the euphemism and was given awards for it. me too Suich :cry:

[pjt7]

39. Clinton should still get all the crap in the world

for putting McCaffrey as his drug czar.

Obama can really show some CHANGE if he hires the right person.

[pattmarty]

41. I knew this about this fucking prick, but he was also..........

......"drug czar" for a short time too. This human piece of shit is a real piece of work. Seen many times on various cable networks also, and he was always an arrogant prick. I believe a "person" like this should at the very least be shunned by any and all business people. This mother fucker should get cancer throughout his body and live until he's 100.

[acmavm]

44. Not all the American people believed we were going attack a country that

was a threat to us. Pile on 10 years of sanctions and millions knew before this war.

I remember the slaughter in Gulf War I. I never understood the 'pride' people took in killing so many people.

[MsLeopard]

45. K&R!

Corporate pravda = US media

[Jack_DeLeon]

58. The Iraqis who died there hadnt surrendered so they were valid targets...

Its perfectly fine to shoot an enemy who is retreating, it is not the same as shooting one who has surrendered.

[madfloridian]

59. Then you are second guessing the military in the OP

It is your right to think our country should massacre a fleeing enemy. Whoopee for us, we are tough guys.

[RC]

100. Many tried to surrender. They were shot up while waving white flags anyway.

[madfloridian]

108. I had an article about those white flags....still looking for it.

Yes, they tried to surrender.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. That was another incident... at some of the trench-works

that one was investigated... for possible war crimes (most likely)

Problem was that nobody could find definite evidence... aka the folks from the ICRC never could... which means, yes I am going to be VERY CYNICAL here, that somebody did a good job hiding the evidence.

[Az_lefty]

61. I drove a truck through the middle of that carnage...it was horrible.

My God, talk about war in your face. I'll never forget it...

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Welcome home soldier

[madfloridian]

106. Sad you had to witness it.

Proud of you for your service.

:hi:

[danielet]

62. And then in Iraq War II McCaffrey made off like a bandit$$$$$$$$$

[SteveM]

82. But, wait! Didn't Clinton appoint him Drug Czar? Pot arrest records were set (nt)

[Dangerman]

90. George Bush and his father...

Are worse murderers to Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.

Damn the Bushes to hell and I hope both of them are sent to f*cking jail!

[Dangerman]

91. re: George Bush and his father...

:mad:

[Recursion]

105. Guess where some of the mass graves blamed on Saddam came from? NT

Actually IIRC DoD came clean about those once it got sorted out, but the media had already run with the "Saddam's mass graves" story.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. The Iraq-Iran war? Watch BBC next time

Those were Iranian dead