Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Valid point, tres, and core to the US argument. However, "Uniform" is subject to interpretation. Something as simple as a distinctive armband or headdress could qualify as a uniform. Therein lies an argument for those who wore particularly colored turbans. That those turbans were either black or white does little to make the issue black or white.

Sure, snood. Men in battle are human. Still, part of the principle behind The Colors is the long traditions of American Servicemembers rising above the norm when faced with the challenges of battle, both physical and ethical. All militaries, like any society, have some bad guys. Our forces tend to the low side of the bad guy scale as a whole, not discounting a very few negative indications. Whether or not the same may be said of Our Leaders, Our Military are pretty much Goodguys.

And to dys: When US forces engage in covert ops wherein they are not wearing a recognizable unform of the armed forces of the US, I would not expect them to be entitled to Geneva Convention protections were they captured.

trespassers will wrote:

And to dys: When US forces engage in covert ops wherein they are not wearing a recognizable unform of the armed forces of the US, I would not expect them to be entitled to Geneva Convention protections were they captured.

you continue to rebut comments i did not make, i have said nothing about US Military-covert operations- geneva conventions. i only said that the US has engaged in military ops sans uniforms. i do not understand how you can post reasoned arguments and then continue to argue nonexistent points.

Tres.
...Any chance you could address my statements, instead of questioning my intellect, because you disagree with me? I try to joke about it, but this is getting serious. People like you take all the fun out of debating.

The historic record of uS troops invalidates your proposition. I'll grant the subjectivity of "Goodguys" and "Badguys", but US troops are not noted as a whole for their barbarity or for their disregard for civilians. [..] We've never been big on "Rape, Pillage, and Slaughter" [..] as a relative matter, those encountering US troops in a warzone are statistically notably less likely to be the victims of inappropriate treatment than are those encountering the troops of a number of other nations

Booman wrote:

Tres.
...Any chance you could address my statements, instead of questioning my intellect, because you disagree with me? I try to joke about it, but this is getting serious. People like you take all the fun out of debating.

Boo - I was not questioning your intellect, I was questioning your knowledge of the Geneva Convention, which you admitted was lacking. How is that ME questioning your INTELLECT?

Try thickening up that skin a bit. That might put some of the fun back in it for you.

(My) translation from NRC Handelsblad,
http://www.nrc.nl/irak/artikel/1049260973121.html

Quote:

British commanders express criticism of 'unnecessary violence'

'Americans are trigger happy'

Some American soldiers in Iraq behave themselves behind the front like cowboys, say British colleagues. The Brits put on their berets instead of helmets as soon as they can, and carry the gun on their back, not in front of the chest.

By Hans and Menno Steketee

LONDEN/ROTTERDAM, 2 APRIL. British commanders have expressed serious criticism of what they call unnecessarily violent behaviour by American militaries behind the front in Iraq. Unarmed civilians have been killed in the process.

The American conduct, that is said to come forth from an "obsession" with personal security, hinders coalition attempts to portray the war as a war of liberation and not as an occupation of Iraq. "There is a very significant hearts and minds-challenge and we are not interested in gratuitous violence", says the highest British military, General Michael Jackson. Other British militaries have anonymously labelled the Americans the last few days as "trigger happy cowboys".

Brits claim to operate more subtly both in patrols in 'liberated' areas and at road blocks. In parts of 'their' zone around Basra, outside the area where there is still fighting, the Brits have exchanged their helmets for a more friendly looking beret. Furthermore they carry the gun on their back, and not in front of their chest. They patrol by foot and don't wear sunglasses, so that they can make eye contact with the population.

The Americans, on the other hand, always wear their complete battle gear and are said to hardly ever leave their vehicles. That aloofness according to the British leads to fear and distrust among the Iraqis and also has led to incidents, such as monday in Najaf, where Americans shot dead seven women and children in a van.

"The difference in conduct between British and Americans is shocking", says Christopher Bellamy, professor in military science at Cranfield University and author of a standard work on peacekeeping aftr armed conflict. "The Americans are paranoid about their own safety. The British are better used to dealing with the risks after thirty years in Northern Ireland and years as UN peacekeepers in the Balkans".

When NATO ground troops pulled into Kosovo after the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, British officers bitingly commented the attitude of the American soldiers. The first thing they did was roll out the barbed wire and fill sandsacks to pull back behind. "How can you expect the population to trust you when the opposite is very clearly not the case?", says one of them.

British militaries have for some time now harbored reservations about the so-called 'warrior-culture' within the American army, in which military tasks outside the direct battle are considered inferior. "They consider peacekeeping as something for softies", says Lord Guthrie, the British former chief of staff, after the Americans last year refused to commit themselves to peace troops in Afghanistan. Condoleeza Rice, the American national security advisor, confirmed that impression by saying that "the 82nd Airborne Division is not meant to bring children to the nursery". [..]

British troops, who are setting up an administration in the port city of Umm Qasr after the battles, say that the relations with the civilian population have been damaged badly by the AMerican soldiers who fought there earlier. A British officer told press agency Reuters how Americans who accompanied him to his headquearters fired off a volley of shots, "as a warning", at a house from which they had been shot at a few days before. "We would never do such a thing", said the officer. [..] British men who were involved in building up relations with the local population in the south, are said now to have been flown to aid the American advance guards. [..]

According to Bellamy it would be incorrect to think that the Brits can afford to take a more subtle attitude because their zone is relatively safe. "In Iraq it is impossible to see the battle separate from so-called peace support operations", says Bellamy. [..] "The most effective peacekeepers are hardened professional soldiers who nevertheless maintain contacts with the local population". The area around Basra is according to him extremely complex [..], because it incorporates swamps, canals, urban and industrial areas. The risk of suicide bombings is just as big there as in the American zones.

Tres, all due respect, but you question a whole lot of folks' intellect.

Violence is the american way. This country was founded by people slaughtering the inhabitants, offtimes women and children. ...70& of americans favor capitol punishmen, even though it's not a deterant, and kills innocents...When Bush was on TV, boasting about the people he had killed on death row, he had a gleam in his eye, reminiscent of a man speaking of sexual conquests. I believe the main difference in Bush, and Hussein, is the constitution.

It was in one of the debates. when I mentoned it before, I got the impression other's had this image burned in their brain, also. It was an eerie sight, Tres.