The US, UN & Iraq III

This is from 'way back when we were talking dolphins. I watched a documentary on A & E last year about how the military has used dolphins since WW II to locate mines and do other sorts of underwater discovery that dolphins do better than humans. I was so fetched with the show that I ordered a tape of it from A & E online.

It is an amazing film. The dolphins come back to the surface near the mother ship and indicate, by bobbing their heads a certain number of times, the nature of their discovery. I would not have believed their feats if they had not been filmed.

Walter, je ne parle pas...ou seulement un petit peu... translate please.

"i only speak a little bit" or close to that anyway

Thanks for the link, Walter:

"«Je n'imagine pas un instant qu'une information envoyée par le QG de division ne me parvienne pas», affirme le capitaine Philip Wolford. Conclusion: à Washington, au QG de la division ou le long de la chaîne, quelqu'un n'a pas voulu ou cru bon de donner cette information.
Quand j'ai demandé son sentiment, après cette affaire, au capitaine Philip Wolford, l'officier brillant et ouvert venu de Columbus, Ohio, pour pulvériser les blindés de la Garde républicaine irakienne a baissé les yeux: «I feel bad; my men feel bad» («Je me sens mal à l'aise, mes hommes se sentent mal.»)"

This confirms an impression I had while reading about Jay Garner ("Viceroy"), the man who will take over civilian command of Iraq -- "the interim." He was very, very angry about the destruction of the Museum and Library. In what he was quoted as saying, I got the impression that there is an intentional split within the military as to who's told what. Perhaps to give officers like Wolford "plausible deniability". They can't have known, cannot be blamed. Very hard to track down who IS to blame...

No wonder people return from military duty angry and disillusioned.

Kara

My translation from French to German and then to English would be as bad as done online by "a maschine". But take ages instead of seconds:
GOOGLE translation

Surely, it is strongly undesirable when the civilians are being erroneously killed, but this not always can be avoided. Soldiers are humans, humans tend to err, and they are not immune to the Murphy's Law either. The accident with journalists has the same nature as friendly fire accidents that occurred in course of this war: error in identification of target led to error in action.

steissd

Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion about this here.

Besides, I personally find it "strongly undesirable" when anybody is killed.

Brits have done their share of crap to the world though. The crusades and occupation of India are the two that immediately come to mind, but the whole empire has been shamefully bloody. I Had thought we were slowly redeeming ourselves...

Walter, the Google "translation"

Civilian death is a common tragedy of war, and impossible to completely avoid in time of war. Sure there will be some incidents from time to time of intentional or careless deaths, but soldiers are people like the rest of us. But due to the entirely predictable fact that civilians Do die as a result of war (as do thousands of civilians wearing combat gear and carrying weapons that we label 'soldiers'), you have to put the responsibility for most of it on the heads of those giving the orders. That's why i think it's a perfectly valid opinion to back the troops but be against the war.

dafdaf, That's the bottom line, isn't it? We must back our troops, because when ordered to combat, they have no choice but to follow orders. Nothing in life is clear-cut, and making every effort to reduce innocent casualties is a new philosophy of war - atleast for the US and the UK. I still believe war to be unnecessary, but we have very little influence on our elected officials. c.i.

Had this discussion with a mate earlier today actually. As a soldier, I'm told, you have to sign a document saying that you will follow the orders you are given (whether you believe in the cause or not).

I wonder if the fact that so many people strongly disagree with this war, that there'll be a reduction in volunteers?


(note: I had called them draftees, not volunteers)

dafdaf
I don't know about having to sign a paper, but it is obvious that they must follow orders. Can you imagine having to poll an army before going into battle? Allowing those who did not agree to refuse to get involved.

There are some people who profess themselves to be experts on everything from A-Z but don't know that the "DRAFT" was eliminated many years back. All of these magnificent young people in our military today are Volunteers.

Regarding orders: There are "Illegal orders" such as ordering the execution of an enemy prisoner of war or any other order that would result in a crime against humanity or any criminal act according to US law or international law. As far as normal military orders---you do not hold a debate about whether or not you want to follow a routine order.

A poll no. But as a soldior, I imagine you need to have faith that when you fight, it's for a just cause? A friend next door has given up his plan to join the army for that very reason.

Ahhh, Perc. How i've missed you.
I know full well you're referring to me by "some people who profess themselves to be experts on everything from A-Z ". But I think you should come clean and admit how you created that notion of me, andfor some reason still maintain it. For the last time (and please let this be the last), I don't claim to be a genius or a book of pure knowledge. I don't know everything about everything, and I don't possess a 'crystal ball'.

Here's a genuine, innocent question (I'm looking for an answer not abuse remember):
An illegal order includes those that break international law. If a war is later found to be illegal, would those serving in that war be therefore carrying out illegal orders?

If a an order in and of itself does not violate international law, there is no violation on the part of anyone carrying out the lawful order. A Political Entity, however, may be guilty of illegally prosecuting a war, and by extension, the members of that entity's ruling administration responsible for the state of war may be held responsible.

History seems to verify your contention. c.i.

dafdaf wrote:

<But I think you should come clean and admit how you created that notion of me, andfor some reason still maintain it. For the last time (and please let this be the last), I don't claim to be a genius or a book of pure knowledge. I don't know everything about everything, and I don't possess a 'crystal ball'.>

Everytime you make an "Absolute statement" with no evidence or perhaps some flimsy rhetorical charade of imagined evidence, you can expect to draw a comment from me. I don't know if you realize it or not many of your opinions are phrased as absolutisms. Most of us express opinions but we attempt to identify them as such or ask questions to trigger a response---absolutisms only identify you as vulnerable. I believe you made the statement that you were very informed on the issues and that you would provide evidence of any assertions----I haven't noticed much evidence.(Now please let this be the last time for this absurd discussion)

dafdaf wrote:

<But as a soldior, I imagine you need to have faith that when you fight, it's for a just cause>

What is a "Just cause" or a "Just war"--- that really is the basis for most of the anti-war emotion. These simple little words have proven cause for much anquish and hand wringing and have provided the motivation for one man to write a book on the subjest.
Three star general Bernard Trainor has just published a book on the subject and yesterday gave a discussion on C-span. The bottom line is this: The US constitution in establishing the president as the commander in chief of the US military, has charged the president with the responsibility for protecting the citizens of the US from possible aggression. In the discharge of this responsibility the president can make the determination about possible actions that would jeopardize the citizens of the US. In order to prevent a frivolous action on the part of the president he must first obtain the approval of the elected representatives of the citizens of the US----this must be done to ensure funds will be available for the prosecution of the war. Congress controls the purse strings.(This approval was obtained for the recent war on Iraq). This president made the determination that Iraq represented a continuing threat to the safety of the American people. It is irrelevant whether or not we as individuals agree with this judgement----he made the decision and it was supported by the representatives of the people. The liberation of the Iraqi people was a secondary moral justification but could not be presented as the "Just Cause" for the war which was the threat posed by Saddam regime because it possessed WMD and had demonstrated it would use them. This action also was not classified as a pre-emptive strike because it was actually a continuation of the first Gulf War.

I may need some help from Timber on this but this is the "bottom line" as I see it.

In a democracy the opinions of the people are generally relevant to some degree, but this is a minor contention, the public supported this war.

Now where I take issue is when you try to translate this into justification, it is not related to justification just the process.

The process does not act as justification. The checks and balances do not automatically cede justification.