[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by ModerateGuy

Exactly what jets need to be cooled?

Yours. Outlandish statements such as "But I would argue that any military, given the same circumstances, would pound for pound be equally as culpable." - are way over the top.

Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the sheer amount of atrocities committed by the US military during war time, and further atrocities committed by the US leadership during "peace" time, would never make such a ridiculous assertion. Especially if you are familiar with what drives both the US military and the US administration in their roles on the world stage.

I was merely asking a question, and was wondering where you came into possession of the knowledge you have concerning military ethics and training protocols.

In the public realm, there is a massive amount of military publications available, which are broadly inclusive of generic concepts, regulations, and guidelines imparted to the military, as well as more specific ideals taught by military professors at Carlisle. Not to mention what's available privately to authorized institutions and individuals, or what history has written of actions that spoke much louder than words.

[MossadConspiracy]

The article is making a political point, but the point is an anti-war argument, not necessarily an anti-american one. It universalizes the brutality of war, it doesnt claim that American troops are particularly brutal or barbaric. War causes everybody to behave in a barbaric manner and sexual violence is and always was a part of it, according to the author.

one other thing that should be clarified has to do with the issue of 500,000 iraqi kids dying under the embargo that was imposed after the gulf war. That figure comes from UNICEF, which did a study on infant mortality and childhood mortality in Iraq. They took figures that the Iraqi public health service had collected before the war, which UNICEF assumed were accurate (and theres no reason to think otherwise), and then collected sample data to come up with new figures for mortality. Based on the change in mortality, they extrapolated that figure. The interesting thing is that there was a huge disparity in infant mortality in Iraq. In 1999 when UNICEF did this, Iraq was basically divided up into two regions. The central and southern portion where all the Arabs live was run by Saddam Hussein. Down there, the Oil-for-Food program was administered by the Iraqi government. Also, in that part of the country, mortality among infants and children pretty much doubled. This is where the 500,000 deaths come from. In the North, there was a no-fly zone and the Kurds had essentially forced the Iraqi government out. There, oil-for-food operated under the same rules, however it was administered directly by the UN. And in this region, infant mortality actually dropped, and so did childhood mortality. The drops were slight compared to the giant jumps in mortality seen in the rest of the country, but they were both statistically and epidemiologically significant. This indicated strongly that the UN and the Kurds were administering the oil-for-food program much better than the Iraqi government (which was stealing most of the revenue), this was the actual conclusion of the UNICEF study, however the one sentence soundbite version of the study results became "America murdered 500,000 Iraqi kids"

ws

[IbnMardhiyah]

UNICEF pegged the mark at 500,000. Other estimates range from 400K to 1M dead children. I specifically chose the 500K figure because it was what was quoted directly to Madeline Albright, and the resultant reply showed the world what the US administration at that time, was all about.

The other point that you missed was that the initial sanctions, and in all subsequent revisions upto 1382, focused on the Saddam Hussein government, and not on the autonomous Kurdish regions. So of course the mortality rates were going to be higher there.

As for the issue of whether America murdered 500,000 kids or not, its enough to see that Halliday and his successor both resigned from their posts, in protest of the fact that the sanctions were nothing short of institutionalized genocide.

[ModerateGuy]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the sheer amount of atrocities committed by the US military during war time, and further atrocities committed by the US leadership during "peace" time, would never make such a ridiculous assertion. Especially if you are familiar with what drives both the US military and the US administration in their roles on the world stage.

While I agree that members of the US military have committed their fair share of atrocities and war crimes over the years, until I see the data that indicates that they are significantly worse on the whole than any actively engaged fighting force...I will remain skeptical. (Especially considering the political and social leanings of many people of this forum.)

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

In the public realm, there is a massive amount of military publications available, which are broadly inclusive of generic concepts, regulations, and guidelines imparted to the military, as well as more specific ideals taught by military professors at Carlisle. Not to mention what's available privately to authorized institutions and individuals, or what history has written of actions that spoke much louder than words.

Yes, of course there is literature available....but unless you are a military analyst, socialiogist, historian, or some other related professional...most don't have the time, luxury, or access to pour over the material you seem to be so adept with. Since you seem to have an in-depth knowledge of the subject....I asked what your profession was in the hope of better realizing the perspective in which you are coming from.

So in asking what your profession was, you replied "Field Analyst"...which could mean any number of things. Can you elaborate more on the specific field in which you work?

Are you a journalist? I would guess that whatever your profession, I think it's safe to project that writing consumes a fair share of your time. Unfortunately, while you seem to be fairly eloquent and well-spoken, the use of terms like "ridiculous assertions" conveys an arrogrant, dismissive, and insulting tone that suggests you spend a great deal of time telling other people how stupid they are.

There is no need to be rude sir....

I peruse this forum on occasion to gain a perspective from others who share different ideals, beliefs, and value systems in the hope of better understanding them. But I am frequently disappointed to find that many people here are just as short-sighted, aggressive, and bigoted as those they would seek to condemn.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by ModerateGuy

Are you a journalist?

Yes, freelance. Yes, I do my research and writing, and my work gets published in a wide variety of media, and has been represented [and misrepresented] at as far as US Senate hearings.

Unfortunately, while you seem to be fairly eloquent and well-spoken, the use of terms like "ridiculous assertions" conveys an arrogrant, dismissive, and insulting tone that suggests you spend a great deal of time telling other people how stupid they are.

Actually, I don't spend a great deal of time telling other people how stupid they are. But your statement says a lot about your self-confidence.

I peruse this forum on occasion to gain a perspective from others who share different ideals, beliefs, and value systems in the hope of better understanding them. But I am frequently disappointed to find that many people here are just as short-sighted, aggressive, and bigoted as those they would seek to condemn.

Three fingers ...

[Skinwalker]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

The hundreds of thousands of men and women in the US military are not independents, they're just mere and very willing cogs in the machine. If you've been around as long as I have [which you clearly have not] then you would know that at all levels of the US military, there are two things:

1) A constant and pervasive lack of concern for innocents killed either deliberately or mistakenly. Starting from WW2 and onwards, its been documented beyond denial, to the point where terms like "collateral damage" are now standard.

2) The US military, in its training methods, routinely dehumanizes the enemy society by use of vulgar or sexual slang, and racist slurs to refer to the same. This is done to remove any inhibitions of killing the "enemy" who are human just as they are. Instead, their inhibitions are rebuilt from the ground up to simply follow their superiors' orders.

Thanks for trying anyways, and have a nice day.

So how do they differ from The Romans, The Spaniards, The Serbs, The Bosnians, The Russians, The Chechnyas, The Nazis, The English, The Indonesians, The Japanese, The Native Americans, Hezbollah, The PLO, The Indians, The Canadians, The Chileans, The Argentinians, The Maoris, The Aborigines,... and too many more to mention?

The real truth is that ALL are guuilty of these sins, they are not peculiar to one group alone. This happens whenever a male dominated society evolves. It has happened down through history and will continue to happen as long as old men send young ones to fight their wars for them regardless of race, creed, or country.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Uh, newsflash roboto ... they are uncaring, unfeeling, brutal savages. How else do you explain the fact that they refer to the thousands of innocents they kill as "collateral damage" and how else do you explain their absolute disregard for half-a-million dead Iraqi children?

Are you talking specifically of those who raped the girl? The decision makers who set the war in motion or just everyone involved in the military in general?

[Tairra]

All I have to say that this is a shame. And no its not only American soliders doing this, other countries and tribes have done this during war times. But I believe that these American soilders are just heedless and then tend to act out more often than others with these hateful crimes, just my opinion. And even if those soilders werent over there they would most likely do to their own people, because that's just how sick they are in the mind. But they wuld get punished more quickly and severly without a doubt, but for some reason the army treats them differently, probably because its some old tradition that they do so its nothing, but once its out in the open they want to act like ohhh I didn't know this was going on *cough cough* right....

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Uh, newsflash roboto ... they are uncaring, unfeeling, brutal savages. How else do you explain the fact that they refer to the thousands of innocents they kill as "collateral damage" and how else do you explain their absolute disregard for half-a-million dead Iraqi children?

All military campaigns have collateral damage, even the ones Mohammed fought..it's part of the parcel when it comes to war.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

... even the ones Mohammed fought ...

Which ones?

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Which ones?

Taif, Khyber, and several of the seiges in the campaign against the Romans.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Taif, Khyber, and several of the seiges in the campaign against the Romans.

???

So just because those campaigns were sieges, you assume there were non-combatant casualties?

[Aryan_]

Early islamic warfare used basic inaccurate siege engines to bombard towns with rocks and repeated volleys of arrows. There was lots of "collateral damage" then too.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by Aryan_

Early islamic warfare used basic inaccurate siege engines to bombard towns with rocks and repeated volleys of arrows. There was lots of "collateral damage" then too.

So basically, you just made a lot of ignorant assumptions about nabeyuna Muhammad [saws] and after that, failed to provide any evidence for y