HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.

CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.

---

Originally posted by nakuma

HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.

CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.

---

---

Originally posted by nakuma

HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.

CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.

---

---

Originally posted by nakuma

HEY EVERYONE!!! MY HEAD IS UP MY ASS! GET TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF ME, AND PORTRAYING MY OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT OFF-TOPIC MEANS AND WHY.

CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.

---

---

Originally posted by Scorpes

1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America,
who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.

---

You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded.  Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc.  The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats.  I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG.  Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it.  Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason.  Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable.  Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.

I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?

• There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus  dollars a month...  building permanent bases.... Why?
• Are we there to promote Democracy?  Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?"
• Are we fighting terrorists?  There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism!
• The "war" does serve one purpose however:  It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it?  Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we?  Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?
  
• It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this....
  

---

Originally posted by daeandor

---

Originally posted by Scorpes

1, The CONFEDERATE flag was an army of rebels who were fighting a war with the United States of America,
who fired the first shots and took up arms against the legal authority of the government. It fits the definition perfectly.

---

You don't have to quote a dictionary.com definition of treason, it is your interpretation of the events of the Civil War to present are clouded.  Considering that until the last ~20 years the states 'in question' were governed predominantly by Democrats, I am sure it has illuded you that it is under Republicans that the issue has even made it to the forefront. Not to mention the fact that the southern states were overwhelmingly Democrat when they passed Jim Crowe Laws, attempted to block desegregation, etc, etc.  The interesting sidenote that a symbol of historic signifigance to the people of those states is under fire as being Republican based support, when the actual hatred tied to the symbol was fostered by Democrats.  I was merely stating that your statement about Republicans is WRONG.  Republicans have had little to do with the Confederate flag or the hatred tied to it.  Lastly, although it seems easy now to look back and say that the Confederates were commiting treason, during the Civil War, even Abe Lincoln 'allegedly' felt that the states had not committed treason.  Although since he did not live long enough to buck up to his words, that is contestable.  Anyway, stating that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason is far fetched.

I'm glad you are so stirred by a symbol, I guess you must support the flag burning ban too right?

---

I understand what your saying, but you have simply not updated your history, Im including then and now, not just then. First off, yes there was a schism in the Democratic party and many of the first people to support that war were democrats, but during the early 19th century, Republicans and Democrats literally switched platforms.

Republicans then became the conservative, religious, and often racist voice of the south during that period while the Democrats went into a more secular, divided, labor union body. Look it up, it first started when a group of Democrats broke away from the Democratic party and ran as the Dixiecrats, They were the leading segregationist and racists of the time. Strom Thurman and  Wallace were once Democrats, it is not by coincidence that they both switched to the Republican party.

I can understand southerners not wanting to admit their relatives were traitors, but the definition fits it to a tee, they had an armed insurrection against the lawfull government of the United States, Not for some great noble goal, but just to keep slaves. Its just simple denial, nothing else.

And your wrong again, im against Flgag burning, arguing against what you feel is wrong about people who run the country is right, we need to question our leadership because that is the only way to preserve liberty, but burning the flag is just disrespectfull and does not move the argument in any productive way.

---

Originally posted by hlampert
I've  got a few things to say about the "war":

• There isn't anyone who still seriously expects to find in Iraq the kind of stockpiles of WMDs and delivery systems it would take to threaten the United States or any allies, yet we are still there spending 6 Billion plus  dollars a month...  building permanent bases.... Why?

Because permanent bases rock. Saudi want's us out. We need somewhere to go.

Our ability to respond militarily to any concern in the middle east depends on our logistical infrastructure. In my opinion, permanent bases is a war aim. It is a solid justification for war.

• Are we there to promote Democracy?  Then why don't we give a serious rat's ass about democracy in China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Russia? EVERYONE knows it was NOT about democracy, it was SUPPOSEDLY about the WMD's that do NOT exist in any kind of quantity to justify an invasion.... where's the "OK, we made a mistake, cya?"
• Are we fighting terrorists?  There weren't any terrorists there before we made it the Disneyworld of terrorism!
• The "war" does serve one purpose however:  It allows George W. Bush (or more likely the unknown people behind him - Cheney, et al) to declare they can do whatever they want and FU to the constitution, established law, etc. Take you off the street, declare you an suspected terrorist, fly you to Deer Hunter land and wire up your nuts to a car battery.... well, it's a "war" isn't it?  Listen to all your phone calls, read all your e-mails, examine all your banking records, well, we need to stop the terrorists don't we?  Except what kind of moronic terrorists would actually those things?
  
• It's pretty obvious the real justification for the war is a powerplay by the elitist powers of neoconservatism - just watch what happens in the midterm elections if you doubt this....
  

---

Scorpes, I understand where you are coming from, I lived in SC with Strom for some time but was born and raised in Chicago.  I fully understand both sides of the argument along with having lived some of your "modern" history.  My point is that your statement that Republicans are to be associated with the hatred surrounding the confederate flag is wrong.  Primarily because the hatred that is now associated with the flag was done while Democrats waved that flag.  Currently, Republicans are platforming the confederate flag argument under the First Ammendment, which is completely different.  If you want to argue that post Civil Rights Act Republicans are really just the old Democrats and Abe Lincoln's Republican Party is really the Democratic Party of today then things change slightly.  If you choose that route, you pretty much have to lean toward neither party being truely associated with the flag because they have fundamentally changed so much that the modern parties resemble nothing of what they once were.

My other point was that you are the only person I have seen who has referred to the confederate flag as being a true symbol of treason.  I have seen scholars refer to it as a symbol of heroism, racism, hatred, and rebellion (Jimmy Dean type and Civil War type).  I have also heard the argument that the confederates committed treason, particularly when referring to the Confederate Congress and the Army generals.

---

Originally posted by nakuma

HEY EVERYONE!!! LET OUR HEADS OUT OUR ASSES! AND GET BACK TO BERATING AND MAKING FUN OF SOE, AND SHARING OUR OFF-CENTERED, INFANTILE, BEGUILED, SELF-ABSORBED VIEWS ON WHAT GAMES ARE BAD AND WHY.

CAN WE?? LOL huh? PLEASE... THESE TOPICS ARE TRULY IDIOTIC HOLD NO PURPOSE IN A WEBSITE CALLED "MMORG.COM" IF U WANNA TALK ABOUT WMD'S GO TO CNN.COM OR FOXNEWS.COM or SOME INDEPENDENT BLOG SITE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT THIS.

---

---

Originally posted by lardmouth

---

Originally posted by baff

---

Originally posted by lardmouth

Are you saying that atrocities only happen in big crowds?

I'm saying far more murders happen in a big city compared to a rural town.  Yes, the numbers of troops are vastly different.  You would expect that if crimes were to occur it would happen within the higher population.  Such as the far, far, far higher number of US troops compared to the other nations.  The numbers are so much greater than the next country down (the UK) you can't seriously even try to make a comparison.  And, I haven't even talked about the next point coming up.

 it's not just the number of crimes, or even the ratio of crimes/soldier, (which is vastly higher) it's also the nature of them.

Despite fighting on all the same battlefields and patrolling and operating identical duties on the same streets no other coalition crimes include institutionalised torture and buggery, massacres, child murder, weddings bombed, cities levelled, persistent civilian casualties, shooting up friendlies and civilians at checkpoints.

Ok, hold on here.  No, you can't say same "patrolling," "identical duties,"  "on the same streets," etc.   Take those disproportionate numbers above...now let's add to the fact that the US forces are even more disporportionately  involved in the most dangerous areas.  Insurgent hotbeds where insurgents fight amongst the civilian population from civilian houses, hospitals, mosques.  Look up how the various coalition contries are stationed.  Look at what regions they're responsible for.   Again, the US takes the brunt of that.   Civilian casualities and friendly fire will always be a part of war.  Always.  Especially when amongst civilian centers being attacked by often non uniformed militias in the midst of those civilians.

And yet in the southern shia regions with identical rural and political structures , the U.S. troops are killing everyone and the other countries aren't.

No one else is doing that. They are not "doing it less". They are not doing it at all.

Take a peak at these links

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3747709.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3735703.stm

And I didn't even really try.  This is just from looking through the BBC and searching under UK.  I'll let you investigate the allegations against all other nations involved in the coalition. 

I'm well aware of all these. See any bombed weddings, Dead Italians troops at checkpoints, systematic torture and abuse on an institutional scale, see any massacres of civilians, see any collaterol damage, or a succession of friendlies killed?

No. The troops work to different rules, A British soldier is not allowed to return fire unless an officer identifies the target. A british soldier can be prosecuted for War crimes by anyone in the world.

When a British soldier is prosectued for war crimes, they try the chain of command above him too.

The standards they are held to are much higher. they have the operating procedures in place to govern them more effectively.

If U.S. forces outnumber coalition forces 4:1, shouldn't we expect 1/5 of all dehumanised behaviour to be commited by coalition soldiers?

Well, let's factor in how many of the other coalition forces are deployed and patrolling the most dangerous regions.  And, as above,  you're wrong about other nations not having any allegations and investiongs against their soldiers.

Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, its the events. Handcuffing a prisoner and lifting him up on a forklift, isn't sticking your fist up his a(nd hundreds more) arse daily and elctrocuting his nipples nightly while you dog shags him. I suggest you take a good look at what those other nations are investigating.

As for more dangerous places? British troops patrol in just as dangerous areas as any the U.S. do. Don't kid yourself. So do the Ukrainians. Worse even. British casualty rates are almost double those of the U.S.

 In fact British troops work side by side with U.S. troops and wear U.s. uniforms and equipment and joint patrol or patrol the same area's. They have directly witnessed U.S. procedure and operating methods. We work side by side, we know exaclty what the differences are. The more nations troops we fight with, the more oportunities we have to learn from them, both in what they do right, and what they do wrong.

On a case by case level it's impossible to judge these "crimes" without being there. But taken as an overall picture, trends become apparent.

But, you haven't taken an "overall picture."

Let me guess the overall picture is that Iraqi's all love americans, the abuses are just commited by a select few, and that the chain of command in no way trys to cover them up and every abuse ever exposed has been volunteered by the pentagon and not caught by an investigative journalist. Please. Who are trying to kid?

How many of those investigations you discuss were brought about as a result of internal military protocol. None.

It's not just numbers, it something altogether different. It's the same problem the SS had. It's attitude.

Oh hogwash.  The numbers of crimes committed by our service men are absolutely miniscule compared to the amount of men we have over there and the nature of the enemy they're fighting.

I agree, but they are still relatively far higher than their counterparts acting in the same operational spheres. Further to this the"nature of the enemy" has no bearing at all on infanticide or the scenes photographed in Abu Gharaib. None. The only nature that has bearing on is the nature of the people doing it.

.

To rectify this situation U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq are now being taught ethics.

They have always been taught ethics and military conduct.  The honorable soldiers (the VAST majority) are getting nothing more than a refresher course.

Lmao, you need to teach your troops ethics? After a wave of getting caught committing atrocities you need to give them a refresher? Shouldn't they just automatically have a sense of ethics as regular human beings? Sorry but this a response to an actual problem not part of an education program for the general betterment of army life.

The US should NEVER sign up to the ICC.   What a disgrace to not allow a soldier to be tried and convicted by his own country.  We've convicted in Abu and we'll in Haditha if that pans out to be the case.   Name me an occupation with a nature of enemy like that in Iraq (stuffing a mans severed penis in mouth) and I'll find you some war crimes committed by your "idols" of peace keeping.

Every occupation ever has this nature. I'm sure you will find war crimes commited by troops of other allied nationalties. I don't for a minute think they are super human or U.S. troops sub human. However troops are trained for different purposes. A shock trooper like a U.S. Marine or an S.S. is trained for a higher level of aggression than a peacekeeper. Further to this his command structure is not trained for peace keeping roles and they have not practised this kind of operation. Most importantly, their experience is limited. They have not learnt many of the lessons by trial and error in previous campaigns. 

 You've convicted in Abu Gharaib, but you haven't convicted the chain of command and won't. The only reason you convicted at all is that the pictures got released on international TV. There are no working systems within you army to effectively bring this kind of behaviour to book internally, hence why ABU and Haditha took 6 months to be found out, and were only "investigated" once they became a propaganda issue. There are no effective systems of complaint that an Iraqi can pursue. American troops are above the local law and unlike other coalition troops above international law also.

The beauty of the ICC, which is totally hated by British troops as they get investigated and hung out to dry over any old nonsense by any old hippy, is threefold.

No. 1 it cycles the troops out of possible flashpoints. When the troops are accused they are removed from areas of obvious tension, and sent somewhere to cool off. (Or in true army style be given shit of a different nature in court).

No.2  It gives the locals (and the world) a form of redress against them outside of military command. Institutionalised abuse cannot be covered up (as easily). It also gives troops within the system a modus of complaint outside of the chain of command.  

No.3 It places the impetus on national military trials to be fair and transparent, if they are not seen to be self regulating effectively, there is a higher court they can be taken too. If you want your troops to behave to a higher standard, you must set them one and set up a means of enforcing it.

Master race thing going on?  Our military is rather represenative of many ethnicities, religions, cultures.  What are you talking about?   Saddam killed far many than 10, 000.   We're not going to lose this war.  We will live without beating the insurgency.  It's not the plan to stick around till they vanish.  We'll stay long enough to allow military commanders (coalition and Iraqi) to feel confident that the Iraqi forces are competent and capable to take over.   We can't lose, because ultimately we're not planning to win it.  The Iraqis will have to do that.

Yes, master race thing, the belief that an American life is worth more than an Iraq life (shoot first policy). The belief that the American system of government is superior to the Iraq system of government, race means more than skin colour and ethnicity. If American troops think anything like all the SuperRepublicanMen that post on forums like here, you can easily imagine that they deeply believe foreigners to be inferior.

Saddam killed more than 10,000. So what? What he did in Iraq over a twenty year period, Bush and Blair have done yearly since they got there. That's the nature of the country. Now that Americans are the defacto rulers of Iraq and have found themselves doing exactly the same things as Saddam did to stay in control, will they recognise their own humanity? Or will they still think they are superior?

If that's all your war aims are, you aren't much use to us as an ally. Go home now, you're just making things worse.

A government be it local, occupational, puppet or even a brutal cruel dictatorship cannot survive without the consent of it's population. If we cannot maintain military bases and domination over the government, this entire war has been for nothing. In fact since we will have better united most of the world against us, it will be for the worse.

Installing a democracy isn't enough, it has to be a friendly and complient democracy. (In fact all it has to be is friendly and compliant). If the Iraqi's democratically elect an anti western government (Hamas style) or a Pro Iranian government, we have lost the war. Our leaders will doubtless find a way of still saying they won, but they won't have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Saddam_Hussein

Look at Saddam's show trial, and remember that one day, you will lose a war too. One day that mock trial will be for your leader.

---

---

---

Originally posted by Fadeus

---

Originally posted by Anageth

Originally posted by Vercades
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Um, if they started finding these WMDs around 2003, wouldn't they have said so? It would have saved them a world of embarrassment.

---

They did, it was just grossly under reported.

---

Under reported?  Meaning... it didn't happen, so it couldn't be reported?  Cause, if Osmama even sneezes it gets reported.  WMDs in Iraq not getting reported... now we're getting silly.

---

Originally posted by Fadeus

---

Originally posted by viadi

Originally posted by Vercades
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
we all know who owns fox"news" and his relationship with bush, we also know fox"news" has started selling products as a news story (skin creams) i no longer belive that fox "news" (yea i know im just driving home the point) can be trusted to give a balanced view on current events seems its all twisted into making you think something or buy something try this news scource

---

Ah yes ofcourse, an entire corporation just putting out completely false information as a favor for a buddy...

How obvious, your insight is astounding.

---

---

Originally posted by baff

And yet in the southern shia regions with identical rural and political structures , the U.S. troops are killing everyone and the other countries aren't.

I love how you use unquantified statements.  "...killing everyone and the other countries aren't .

Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, its the events. Handcuffing a prisoner and lifting him up on a forklift, isn't sticking your fist up his a(nd hundreds more) arse daily and elctrocuting his nipples nightly while you dog shags him. I suggest you take a good look at what those other nations are investigating.

Wow, I provide proof against your "not committing any" claim and this is your best answer?  Like I said, it took me about 5 minutes on BBC to find just those allegtions of torture and shooting civilians.  Take your blinders off and get rid of your bias.   That fact that you even attempted to brush this off outs you as having a bias.  And if Allegations and investigations aren't the problem, hold the individual soldiers that have been CONVICTED accountable.  Remember allegations and investigations aren't the problem.

As for more dangerous places? British troops patrol in just as dangerous areas as any the U.S. do. Don't kid yourself. So do the Ukrainians. In fact british troops work side by side with U.S. troops and wear U.s. uniforms and equipment and joint patrol or patrol the same area's. They have directly witnessed U.S. procedure and operating methods. We work side by side, we know exaclty what the differences are. The more nations troops we fight with, the more oportunities we have to learn from them, both in what they do right, and what they do wrong.

Are you kidding me?  The bulk of the measly number of british troops have it easy compared to the bulk of the US troops.  They are not patrolling in proportionate numbers the most dangerous areas.  The British have mostly been responsible for some of the least dangerous southern areas.  And some of the other nations aren't involved in combat patrols at all.  Period.  Japan, for instance was involved in reconstruction, and that's basically it.

Let me guess the overall picture is that Iraqi's all love americans, the abuses are just commited by a select few, and that the chain of command in no way trys to cover them up and every abuse ever exposed has been volunteered by the pentagon and not caught by an investigative journalist. Please. Who are trying to kid?

You mean like the allegations exposed by the BBC against the UK?  Oh yeah, you brushed that off rather quickly.  Who are you trying to kid?  How many UK commanders have skewed reports?  How many coverups are they sitting on?  Nope, I forgot that's inconveniant for you arguement.  Shhh.

How many of those investigations you discuss were brought about as a result of internal military protocol. None.

Wrong, Abu Gharaib, for one had already been under investigation before it got to the press.  And other incidents are investigated when command gets information that something has occured.  And, not every allegation is going to be true.  Some have been shown to be false, in fact.  I'm sorry to inform you of this.

I agree, but they are still relatively far higher than thier counterparts acting in the same operational speres.

Because, yet again, not one of these counterparts have anything even remotely close to the numbers of troops...I can't stress this enough.   It's not even remotely close.   US = about 130,000...the second highest, the UK= about 8000....

Lmao, you need to teach your troops ethics? After a wave of getting caught committing atrocities you need to give them a refresher? Shouldn't they just automatically have a sense of ethics as regular human beings? Sorry but this a response to an actual problem not part of an education program for the general betterment of army life.

Yes, they're taught ethics.  And?  A wave?  Compared to what?   How many proven with hard facts?   How many are just allegations that could very well be groundless?  How many convicted?  What violent struggle against such a brutal and destructive insurgency do you make your comparison to?  Of course they have a strong sense of ethics as human beings.  That's why the vast, vast, vast majority have served honorably. 

Every occupation ever has this nature. I'm sure you will find war crimes commited by troops of other allied nationalties. I don't for a minute think they are super human or U.s. troops sub human. However troops are trained for different purposes. A shock trooper like a U.S. Marine or an S.S. is trained for a higher level of aggression than a peacekeeper. Further to this his command structure is not trained for peace keeping roles and they have not practised this kind of operation. Most importantly, their experience is limited. They have not learnt many of the lessons by trial and error in previous campaigns. 

 You've convicted in Abu Gharaib, but you haven't convicted the chain of command and won't. The only reason you convicted at all is that the pictures got released on international TV. There are no working systems within you army to effectively bring this kind of behaviour to book internally, hence why ABU and Haditha took 6 months to be found out, and were only "investigated" once they became a propaganda issue.

Nope, ABU was already under investigation when the photos made it to the public.  Haditha was being investigated after photos showed the soldiers report was false.  Photos are good evidence of a contradiction in claims.  Sometimes that's the only that these contradictions become visible.

The beauty of the ICC, which is totally hated by British troops as they get investigated and hung out to dry over any old nonsense by any old hippy, is threefold.

Wow, sounds like a wonderful system for troops who are willing to die for their country.  Congrats.  Our soldiers swear an oath under our constitution.  They will be investigated and convicted under own constitution.

No. 1 it cycles the troops out of possible flashpoints. When the troops are accused they are removed from areas of obvious tension, and sent somewhere to cool off. (Or in true army style be given shit of a different nature in court).

No.2  It gives the locals (and the world) a form of redress against them outside of military command. Institutionalised abuse cannot be covered up. It also gives troops within the organisation a system of the complaint outside of the chain of command.  

No.3 It places the impetus on national military trials to be fair and transparent, if they are not seen to be self regulating effectively, there is a higher court they can be taken too. If you want your troops to behave to a higher standard, you must set them one and set up a means of enforcing it.

Yes, master race thing, the belief that an American life is worth more than an Iraq life (shoot first policy). The belief that the American system of government is superior to the Iraq system of government, race means more than skin colour and ethnicity. If American troops think anything like all the SuperRepublicanMen that post on forums like here, you can easily imagine that they deeply believe foreigners to be inferior.

Your whole biased and blindered attitued is the biggest example of the SuperRepublicanMen.  You've done nothing, absolutely nothing, but talk about how horrible our troops are.  You compare them to Saddam and the SS.  You're the one with the blatant superiority complex.  Get over your self.  There is no shoot first policy. Our troops in the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of combat operations and while under attack, have done nothing, but operate with the greatest amount of honor.   

Saddam killed more than 10,000. So what? What he did in Iraq over a twenty year period, Bush and Blair have done yearly since they got there. That's the nature of the country. Now that Americans are the defacto rulers of Iraq and have found themselves doing exactly the same things to stay in control, will they recognise their own humanity? Or will they still think they are superior?

You are joke to even compare the amount of murders (intent to kill civilians/prisoners) committed by an extremely small amount of the 130, 000 US forces to Saddam's deliberate and sanctioned targeting of civilians for mass murder, torture, execution. 

If that's all your war aims are, you aren't much use to us as an ally. Go home now, you're just making things worse.

Now I'm going to get a bit nasty with you.  How about actually sending some troops instead of that token number you're so proud of?  Us, not being of much use?  Yeah, tough talk from someone in the UK.  Your 8,000 stationed in mostly the less hostile of areas aren't much use to us, truth be told.  Go home.  Seriously, I'd rather not have the UK there anymore.  I'm sick of the stuck up superior attitude that comes from over there.  I'd love to see, in the future, the US declare that your side of the world is left to you folks.  I think we should sign peace treaties with N. Korea and Iran.  Tell them go ahead, do whatever they want, we'll be hands off.  They can be the future problems of your so called superior soldiers.  Peacekeep that. 

A government be it local, occupational, puppet or even a brutal cruel dictatorship cannot survive without the consent of it's population. If we cannot maintain military bases and domination over the government, this entire war has been for nothing. In fact since we will have better united most of the world against us, it will be for the worse.

Installing a democracy isn't enough, it has to be a friendly and complient democracy. (In fact all it has to be is friendly and compliant). If the Iraqi's democratically elect an anti western government (Hamas style) or a Pro Iranian government, we have lost the war. Our leaders will doubtless find a way of still saying they won, but they won't have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_of_Saddam_Hussein

Look at Saddam's show trial, and remember that one day, you will lose a war too. One day that mock trial will be for your leader.

A mock trial?????  Saddam's trial is a mock trial?  Wow, there goes that superior attitude of yours.  The iraqis can't run a trial, I quess?  Take your snooty superior yesteryear UK attitude and stick it. 

---

---

Originally posted by Necran
My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.

---

---

Originally posted by jmd10222

---

Originally posted by Necran
My sources have informed me America has over 2000 nuclear bombs, also they invented pretty much all the chemical and biological weapons known to man, someone should really stop them if you ask me.

---

Acctully Germany was the first, and they used them in WW1. Get your facts straight before you spew your "The USA is EVIL" crap.

---

the united states started the eugenics movement in the 1920's.  

we banned the marriage and breeding rights of mentally handicapped people.

these ideas of race superiority spread to germany where hitler saw value in them to unite the german population against the jews.

so i suppose we're responsible for the holocaust.

---

Originally posted by lardmouth
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the confederate flag.  It is part of history and is a distinguishable icon of the south.  Before there was such a thing as a confederate flag the slave trade flourished under the US and other nations' flags.  Perhaps, those too should be done away with too?

---

the united states in cooperation with the WTO puts people in far worse conditions than slaves ever were.

at least slave owners had a responsibliity to their slaves because of the monetary value inherent therein.

now corporations can pay people starvation wages and screw them completely over, because there is no responsibility.

america's treatment of minorities in other countries via corporate affairs has much much worsened since the slave trade.

slavery would be a blessing, compared to the sweatshops we have now.