NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050920/us_nm/iraq_abuse_dc

Lynndie England is pleading stupidity, now, it seems. Does that look like a "Weird Al" record title to you as much as it does for me? I've heard of pleading insanity, but never saying you're TOO DUMB TO KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG! I mean, come ON! The woman was raping people! And they never taught her that it's wrong? If Michael Jackson tried to pull this one, the media would destroy him, with reason, so, where's the outrage for a woman that rapes people and pleads STUPIDITY???

LOL. You know she's going to pull shit out of her ass to explain the utterly retarded things she did. She just can't face the fact that she did something wrong. I mean, she was fighting terrorism, and you can't be wrong when you're doing that. :rolleyes:

LOL. You know she's going to pull shit out of her ass to explain the utterly retarded things she did. She just can't face the fact that she did something wrong. I mean, she was fighting terrorism, and you can't be wrong when you're doing that. :rolleyes:

Well, that seems to be Dubya's motto these days, but, still, she could've pulled OTHER shit out of her ass, like insanity. But PLEADING STUPIDITY?

- "Your honor, I request to be considered incompetent on the grounds that I'm too dumb to stand trial!"

- "I see. Let me apply the test." *Hands her a sheet with "turn around" written in both sides*

- *She starts turning the paper around repeatedly*

- "Case dismissed. But I'd keep away from ice cream if I were you, miss England, unless you remember well that they're not supposed to go on your forehead. This court is adjourned."

It doesn't say much for the US armed forces when they allow nuff nuffs like her to join up.

Then again, Dubya is the biggest and most dangerous nuff nuff on the planet.

Well, the US armed forces don't exactly want people smart enough to question their orders, now, do they?

Otherwise they'd never have enough people out there to commit the atrocities they want them to commit.

There should always be someone to pull the army into line if they go too far.

As an example, take a step back in time to Vietnam. One of the coolest things that one of the US armed forces did then was actually turn against their own. That was was one of the more pointless ones.
It was the one with the helicopter pilot and gunner who, witnessing a massacre of an innocent village, basically said "f**k this" and, pointing the gunship's gun at the soldiers, got them to knock it off. He's still considered something of a hero in Vietnam, I think. He even gives lectures at universities in America nowadays. I remember seeing him on BBC world, although his name escapes me.

I forget exactly which massacre it was...that wasn't on the heels of My Lai, was it?

Whatever it was, there needs to be more stuff like this. People to actually see through the bullshit and actually do something about it, I mean.

I forget exactly which massacre it was...that wasn't on the heels of My Lai, was it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai

A US Army scout helicopter crew famously halted the massacre by landing between the American troops and the remaining Vietnamese hiding in a bunker. The 24-year-old pilot, Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr., confronted the leaders of the troops and told them he would open fire on them if they continued their attack on civilians.

While the other two members of the helicopter crew — Spc. Lawrence Colburn and Spc. Glenn Andreotta — brandished their heavy weapons at the men who had participated in the atrocity, Thompson directed an evacuation of the village. The crewmembers have been credited with saving at least 11 lives but were long thereafter reviled as traitors. On April 8, 1968, Glenn Andreotta and Charles Dutton, crewmen on an OH-13 (62-03813) "Warlord" scout, were killed when their aircraft was shot down, crashed and burned. It was not until exactly thirty years later, following a television report concerning the incident, that the three were awarded the Soldier's Medal, the army's highest award for bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy.

Well, the US armed forces don't exactly want people smart enough to question their orders, now, do they?

Otherwise they'd never have enough people out there to commit the atrocities they want them to commit.

There should always be someone to pull the army into line if they go too far.

As an example, take a step back in time to Vietnam. One of the coolest things that one of the US armed forces did then was actually turn against their own. That was was one of the more pointless ones.
It was the one with the helicopter pilot and gunner who, witnessing a massacre of an innocent village, basically said "f**k this" and, pointing the gunship's gun at the soldiers, got them to knock it off. He's still considered something of a hero in Vietnam, I think. He even gives lectures at universities in America nowadays. I remember seeing him on BBC world, although his name escapes me.

I forget exactly which massacre it was...that wasn't on the heels of My Lai, was it?

Whatever it was, there needs to be more stuff like this. People to actually see through the bullshit and actually do something about it, I mean.

You have no idea how wrong you are. My grandfather fought in Vietnam, and while great atrocities were committed by americans, much worse one were done by the vietcong. How many innocent villages do you think the vietcong left alone when we withdrew? I'm not even going to argue this war.

As for your stupid soldier theory? Answer this, why does the military spend so much on educating its men? They give out more scholarships to attend college than any other entity. My older brother is in traing for the army right now, and they pay for his schooling. My cousin is an officer in the air force stationed in colorado, they paid for his too. I myself was in an ROTC program at my university, offers dozens of new scholarships evry year. The people I met there, future AF officers, were among the best men and women I have ever known. Until you know something about the mlitary other then the hearsay from what others have seen you have no room to talk.

You have no idea how wrong you are. My grandfather fought in Vietnam, and while great atrocities were committed by americans, much worse one were done by the vietcong. How many innocent villages do you think the vietcong left alone when we withdrew? I'm not even going to argue this war.

As for your stupid soldier theory? Answer this, why does the military spend so much on educating its men? They give out more scholarships to attend college than any other entity. My older brother is in traing for the army right now, and they pay for his schooling. My cousin is an officer in the air force stationed in colorado, they paid for his too. I myself was in an ROTC program at my university, offers dozens of new scholarships evry year. The people I met there, future AF officers, were among the best men and women I have ever known. Until you know something about the mlitary other then the hearsay from what others have seen you have no room to talk.

Then how do you explain miss England? The Vietnam war ITSELF was an unneeded atrocity - as a WHOLE. So was the Iraq war, but, again I ask, remaining on topic, if the military is smart, how is Ms. England explained? They are incompetent to never having ran a profile on her? They are incompetent not to teach her well? They're evil to simply not care about these details and let the raping go on? Pick your option, by all means.

Then how do you explain miss England? The Vietnam war ITSELF was an unneeded atrocity - as a WHOLE. So was the Iraq war, but, again I ask, remaining on topic, if the military is smart, how is Ms. England explained? They are incompetent to never having ran a profile on her? They are incompetent not to teach her well? They're evil to simply not care about these details and let the raping go on? Pick your option, by all means.

Did I say the process was perfect? Did I say that there are no evils in the military caused by evil men? No, I said that the military tries to have smart people, who are responsible, good people. Heck, part of the air force code of conduct states that individual soldiers are resposible for their own actions. Her crimes number more than just the rapes, I would call her a traitor as well. Its very simple, she is an evil person who did evil while wearing a military uniform, and now she's trying to get out of punishment. Doing evil in a military uniform no more makes the military evil than it would make construction evil because you wore a hard hard hat.

And to say vietnam was an atrocity as a whole? You obviously dont know much about communism, or at least communism as applied to the vietcong.

Did I say the process was perfect? Did I say that there are no evils in the military caused by evil men? No, I said that the military tries to have smart people, who are responsible, good people. Heck, part of the air force code of conduct states that individual soldiers are resposible for their own actions. Her crimes number more than just the rapes, I would call her a traitor as well. Its very simple, she is an evil person who did evil while wearing a military uniform, and now she's trying to get out of punishment. Doing evil in a military uniform no more makes the military evil than it would make construction evil because you wore a hard hard hat.

And to say vietnam was an atrocity as a whole? You obviously dont know much about communism, or at least communism as applied to the vietcong.

Lessee, filling whole forests and ecosystems with napalm (no concern at all for who was under the trees, animal or human), killing about two million people (I'll give a low estimate and say "only a quarter" were noncombatants) for NO REASON WHATSOEVER, destroying a country's infrastructure completely... I could go on by mentioning, for instance, My Lai, but I won't. About the "fight against communism", I'll remind you that yours was an ideology nice enough to remove an elected leader from power in Chile through assassination and setting up a dictatorship that would - in actions, if not in numbers - make Stalin feel unskilled at torturing. Brazil, my country, didn't need the CIA to do the overthrowing, but the grunts here could count on its help if need was, too. Vietnam, Chile, Brazil, and all the rest of the world, are places filled with people. Not pawns, as some more militaristic people seem to think. Saddam was a "statesman" when Rummy was shaking his hand after the US helped him into power. Using the Iraqi people as pawns in a damn game against what? A bureaucracy that could barely stand together? Most military coups were caused by capitalism. There, it just lost its moral high-ground. By the way, remember back in Afghanistan, circa 1988? Yes, Bin Laden was your friend. Indeed, he was friendly enough to be trained by the CIA. So, now you had used a complete psychopath as a pawn, too. And all that support helped him build a base that financed and allowed 9/11. That's militarism for you, as well as that bad habit of only deposing regimes that you don't like, regardless of their status as a dictatorship or a democracy. As an example, the attempts to intimidate Chávez, a democratically elected leader. And the lack of attempts to intimidate, for instance, Musharraf. Oh, right, he's your "ally". Funny, so was Bin Laden. And Saddam. It's not only the Vietnam war that's wrong. Sort out these contradictions first, before claiming any sort of moral high ground. Good night.

Those all the way up to just below Rumsfeld could have
said, No, way Jose! We're not going to participate in your war crimes shenanigans.

declasified documents
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/


Unfortunately,
such policy is not a blemish, but a pattern.

http://www.soaw.org/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/index.htm



WE, since our gov't won't do it,
need to instill within ourselves
the idea that conformity is not a good thing.
Don't be a good nazi. "just following orders"
This is at least, partially our fault.

Lessee, filling whole forests and ecosystems with napalm (no concern at all for who was under the trees, animal or human), killing about two million people (I'll give a low estimate and say "only a quarter" were noncombatants) for NO REASON WHATSOEVER, destroying a country's infrastructure completely... I could go on by mentioning, for instance, My Lai, but I won't. About the "fight against communism", I'll remind you that yours was an ideology nice enough to remove an elected leader from power in Chile through assassination and setting up a dictatorship that would - in actions, if not in numbers - make Stalin feel unskilled at torturing. Brazil, my country, didn't need the CIA to do the overthrowing, but the grunts here could count on its help if need was, too. Vietnam, Chile, Brazil, and all the rest of the world, are places filled with people. Not pawns, as some more militaristic people seem to think. Saddam was a "statesman" when Rummy was shaking his hand after the US helped him into power. Using the Iraqi people as pawns in a damn game against what? A bureaucracy that could barely stand together? Most military coups were caused by capitalism. There, it just lost its moral high-ground. By the way, remember back in Afghanistan, circa 1988? Yes, Bin Laden was your friend. Indeed, he was friendly enough to be trained by the CIA. So, now you had used a complete psychopath as a pawn, too. And all that support helped him build a base that financed and allowed 9/11. That's militarism for you, as well as that bad habit of only deposing regimes that you don't like, regardless of their status as a dictatorship or a democracy. As an example, the attempts to intimidate Chávez, a democratically elected leader. And the lack of attempts to intimidate, for instance, Musharraf. Oh, right, he's your "ally". Funny, so was Bin Laden. And Saddam. It's not only the Vietnam war that's wrong. Sort out these contradictions first, before claiming any sort of moral high ground. Good night.

I would say thats a fairly high estimate, but then I'm not an expert on the vietnam war. Quite simply, I am not prepared to make a large debate about it. But to treat it like a decided issue when it is still openly debated in many places is not right.
I dont think anyone, ever, in all existance, could make stalin feel unskilled at torturing.
You must remember that america, and its military, is also made up of people, not some great evil force.

""Saddam was a "statesman" when Rummy was shaking his hand after the US helped him into power. Using the Iraqi people as pawns in a damn game against what? A bureaucracy that could barely stand together? Most military coups were caused by capitalism. There, it just lost its moral high-ground."" I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

As for the rest of these, can you not realize that yes we put these people in power, such as the taliban, but we were trying to do the right thing. If we are attacking them now, then they obviously have not done what we wanted. Why did we put them in power? Because we are trying very hard not to be another all conquering empire. We are trying to give people from those nation the power, and the freedom to do what they wish with it. It is what we are trying to do with Iraq, by creating a government run, consiting of, and controlled by iraqis. This is what we have tried to do in other instances, but we put in pre-existing systems with most of the previous ones. We have tried to give other nations political freedom, by not mandating what they do after we are gone. If those we put in power, ex taliban, do evil with what we have given them, that is their right and resposibility. Now America is at least partly to blame, as they chose poorly in who to give power to. But it is their actions, not ours that are evil. Does any of this make sense? Am I just completely wrong? Maybe I'm just crazy and isolated in my experience. Maybe the rest of america is evil, but I don't believe that.

Oh and good night for me as well.

If America were as evil as some of you were making out, Miss England would not be on trial at all, but instead be honored with a ticker tape parade. There are monsters everywhere, I am sure you all have them in your countries as well. And a good many wind up in uniform. The difference is, we air our dirty laundry for all to see, so you all naturally have lots of ammo to chuck our way. But guess what? We don't care. Not really. We try to do the right thing as a nation, and that is all anyone can expect of anyone. Not because we are worried the world will hate us if we don't. But because it is the right thing to do.

You must remember that america, and its military, is also made up of people, not some great evil force.

So was the Vietcong. Both sides committed atrocities that cannot be excused by saying the other side was worse.


As for the rest of these, can you not realize that yes we put these people in power, such as the taliban, but we were trying to do the right thing.

Right thing? Don't make me laugh. What actions the US took back then were directly motivated by self interest and military doctrine that wanted a containment of the Soviet Union and the idealogy of communism. Where is the right thing when you assassinate DEMOCRATICALLY elected leaders to be replaced with military tyrants? The right thing is a load of bullshit that the American 'feel good' media and propoganda is what they want you to believe.


If we are attacking them now, then they obviously have not done what we wanted.

Yes, heaven forbid our puppets gain minds of their owns. Let them commit whatever atrocities they like, so long as it is to OUR benefit.


Why did we put them in power? Because we are trying very hard not to be another all conquering empire.

Because it is easier to operate by proxy while putting up a facade of righteousness rather than if you actually occupied countries.


We are trying to give people from those nation the power, and the freedom to do what they wish with it. It is what we are trying to do with Iraq, by creating a government run, consiting of, and controlled by iraqis.

You mean the same kind of Iraqi that Saddam Hussein was? The person we supplied chemical weapons with? The one who was our "friend" when he fought against Iran? The one who only became our "unfriend" once he went into Kuwait after getting our "permission"?


This is what we have tried to do in other instances, but we put in pre-existing systems with most of the previous ones. We have tried to give other nations political freedom, by not mandating what they do after we are gone. If those we put in power, ex taliban, do evil with what we have given them, that is their right and resposibility.

You mean the right and responsibility that was being used as the secondary excuse after the first one didn't pan out?


Now America is at least partly to blame, as they chose poorly in who to give power to. But it is their actions, not ours that are evil. Does any of this make sense? Am I just completely wrong? Maybe I'm just crazy and isolated in my experience. Maybe the rest of america is evil, but I don't believe that.

It isn't the fact that America is evil, nor is it it's people or even it's government. While the government calls the shots, they don't do these things for kicks. They do it because it serves their interests, be it propping dictatorships or toppling democracies or even arming radical terror organizations. The policies and actions are not inherently evil. They are ruthless, inured to whatever suffering may result from the actions taken so long as their interests are fulfilled. And freedom, liberty, equality, are NOT among these interests.

The difference is, we air our dirty laundry for all to see, so you all naturally have lots of ammo to chuck our way.

No, the US, like any other country with dirty laundry, tries to hide it.

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


Initial investigations of the My Lai incident were undertaken by the 11th Light Infantry Brigade's Commanding Officer, Colonel Oran Henderson, under orders from Americal's Assistant Commanding Officer, Brigadier General Young. Henderson interviewed several of the soldiers involved in the incident, then issued a written report in late April claiming that approximately 20 civilians were inadvertently killed during the military operation in My Lai. The army at this time was still describing the event as a military victory resulting in the death of 128 of the enemy.

Hmmm, if enemy meant unarmed and unaware villagers, then they might get away with that.


Six months later, a young soldier of the 11th Light Infantry (The Butcher's Brigade) named Tom Glen wrote a letter accusing the Americal division (and other entire units of the U.S. military, not just individuals) of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the massacre. Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of the Massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public.

And then, the turnaround when it was politically feasible.


On May 4, 2004, United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored." [1]

And it was not the administration that bothered to bring this to light. No, it was the actions of one person who had the will to open his eyes and investigate the matter when no one else would.


The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.

And here is proof that the army as well as the political body at the time the very least, doesn't view it as morally wrong.


On March 17, 1970, the United States Army charged 14 officers with suppressing information related to the incident. Most of these charges were dropped.

So much for liberty and justice for all eh?


U.S. Army Lt. William Calley was convicted in 1971 of premeditated murder in ordering the shootings and initially sentenced to life in prison; two days later, however, President Richard Nixon ordered him released from prison.

How nice, a presidential pardon. Nixon's way of saying, "You did good son."

I know Eut might take offense at this, but at the very least, a great part of the reason why the Vietnam Vets faced all the difficulties they had on return was thanks to the actions of soldiers who had forgotten their humanity and an administration that would do nothing to punish them.


Calley served 3½ years of house arrest in his quarters at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was then ordered freed by a federal judge. Calley claimed that he was following orders from his captain, Ernest Medina; Medina denied giving the orders and was acquitted at a separate trial. Most of the soldiers involved in the My Lai incident were no longer enlisted. Of the 26 men initially charged, Lt. Calley's was the only conviction.

A conviction I might add, that got lighter and lighter to the point where it was overturned.


But guess what? We don't care. Not really.

Course not. You don't care about things like fairness, or equality or even the nebulous concept of justice. Or perhaps you think these men were perfectly justified in carrying out a massacre and getting away with it?


We try to do the right thing as a nation, and that is all anyone can expect of anyone. Not because we are worried the world will hate us if we don't. But because it is the right thing to do.

No you don't. The American Government is only interested in doing things that serve it's interests. Not the right thing.

Do I blame them for that attitude? Hardly. Any other nation is just as self-serving. But to date, only the US has had this much propoganda going about how 'good' and 'noble' they are. The only thing that it has shown is how good it is at ignoring the blood on it's own hands.

Well, that seems to be Dubya's motto these days, but, still, she could've pulled OTHER shit out of her ass, like insanity. But PLEADING STUPIDITY?

- "Your honor, I request to be considered incompetent on the grounds that I'm too dumb to stand trial!"

- "I see. Let me apply the test." *Hands her a sheet with "turn around" written in both sides*

- *She starts turning the paper around repeatedly*

- "Case dismissed. But I'd keep away from ice cream if I were you, miss England, unless you remember well that they're not supposed to go on your forehead. This court is adjourned."

Hahahaha...thanks for the laugh. :D

If America were as evil as some of you were making out, Miss England would not be on trial at all, but instead be honored with a ticker tape parade.No. Actually, this is called a "peasant sacrifice" in German. You sacrifice someone lower down the chain of command to appease the masses to divert attention from those higher up. I'm not saying that this is the case with England's trial, however those publicly accused of having issued orders that precipitated such behavior have not been satisfactorily cleared of any suspicion. Now if Bush actually had a hand in issuing orders, reelecting him would be the equivalent of giving him that ticker tape parade.
There are monsters everywhere, I am sure you all have them in your countries as well. And a good many wind up in uniform.Too true. I think the main difference between some of them is opportunity.
The difference is, we air our dirty laundry for all to see, so you all naturally have lots of ammo to chuck our way. But guess what? We don't care. Not really. We try to do the right thing as a nation, and that is all anyone can expect of anyone. Not because we are worried the world will hate us if we don't. But because it is the right thing to do.That's not true. The American governments of the past and present have continuously let a sock or two fall to hide the dirty underwear they're carting away. When someone up top has something to hide, they tend to try to keep it hidden, and they have more power to do so than most ordinary citisens.
Too many people don't care and are too willing to give the American government a blank cheque. Some of the conversations I've had here have made this painfully clear to me.
Actually, did you know that there's fixed prices paid for when civilians get injured or killed by US military personnel while operating in places they officially aren't? While it's most certainly reasonable to deal with covert operations like this, it isn't a form of hanging out your dirty laundry or doing the "right thing".

Snip

*Hands Non Aligned States the scripture of a cookie factory.*

Snip.

Und eine "cookie factory" für dich! *Hands Laerod the scripture of another factory.*

BTW, how is it said in German? Peasant sacrifice, I mean.

Danke.