A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi

Only service folks would have any idea how hard it is for the enlisted to fight charges brought against them, the deck is stacked so high against them. These charges were brought up because of democrat-lap-dog-media, and are falling apart under scrutiny.

BTW, did you know the first sentence in courts-martial cases is...

The United States of America
vs.
(insert name here)


I'm sure the U.S. would gladly put away anyone who was truly guilty of murder while under their military service.

But I sure do laugh at folks who spout off about our men & women in uniform, when they have never even bothered to see if they could make it thru boot camp.

 

In your view, what, if anything, qualifies as an atrocity?

 

The term is terribly overused, especially by ant-war liberals.

Since any killing can be considered "atrocious", it could mean, literally, that every person who kills another in war could be considered to have committed an "atrocity". To the anti-war wackos, it almost means exactly that. Only the term is almost never applied to our soldiers when they are killed or murdered after being taken captive. To an anti war liberal, it only applies when civilians die as a result of our combat action.

We are always to ignore the fact that our enemies hide amongst civilians and use them for shields. That's an ironclad rule. That will insure that more actions can be called "atrocities"

Illegal killings could possibly be considered an "atrocity". An illegal killing is when an obviously unarmed civilian, not taking part in a military type operation, is intentionally targeted and killed. That's murder, but anti war types will be sure to label it an "atrocity".

In the case of Haditha, the whole affair has been determined by anti-war wackos to be an "atrocity", although not one single Marine has been convicted of murder or anything else, for that matter.

BTW Charges were also dropped against another of the Marines.

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/national/doc4625b94d3696c722552536.txt
Charges dropped against Haditha Marine

 

This coming from someone who regularly quotes WingNut Daily as a reliable news source. :laugh:

 

That's exactly why we need to be very certain that war is necessary before we get involved in one. It's also why what the president tells the people and the Congress about why we're going to war is crucial.

By the way, anti-war sentiment is NOT new. It certainly was around during the Viet Nam war 40 years ago and also before WW2 70 years ago.

 

WND is a neocon rag. I use to think it was conservative, but Farrah has showed his true colors by putting out the same government propaganda Murdoch and Faux does. Scare em good and scare em everyday! A fearful confused population has always been the state's meal ticket.

 

No. Your problems are of a different nature.

It absolutely will not do to wait for some sort of trial to make your pronouncement , will it?

It really appears you're not interested in the facts.

 

"An investigating officer in the case against a US Marine accused of murdering civilians in Haditha, Iraq, has recommended that charges against him be dropped, concluding that the government's allegations that the Marine executed a group of men are "unsupported and incredible"...The findings by Marine Lt. Col. Paul Ware could exonerate Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, who formed part of a convoy that was struck by a roadside bomb in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005...

"He responded instinctively, assaulting into the room and emptying his pistol," Ware wrote. "Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCpl Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement."...

"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent.." Ware wrote.

- Washington Post

 

Well you are in good company then. Rep Murtha was willing to call it cold-blooded murder before he had any idea what the circumstances were.

 

Then you would be wrong.

But I will always give our Marines the benefit of the doubt until charges are proven in court.

Until then, there is no "atrocity", only allegations.

As far as I'm concerned, the Marines in question operated properly according to the ROE... until proven otherwise.

That's the way the system is supposed to work, except for anti-war, anti-troop wackos.

 

We aren't at war with Iraq. We're "liberating" them from the terrible and cruel dictator we set up there in the 50's and kept in power till he decided to buck the system. He was a puppet gone bad. Now that we've unleashed a goodly amount of shock and awe destruction on the whole country we're rebuilding it remember? That makes us nation (re) builders. That's all. So, if we aren't at war with Iraq...how can there be any anti war types? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say anti nation (re) builder types?

 

The Congress never declared war against Iraq, poncho. Therefore, you are correct to say that these United States are not at war with Iraq.

 

And Carpro, who poncho aimed at, did not state that. Poncho was just being Poncho.

 

And I was replying to what poncho wrote, not what carpro wrote.