Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

[thirdlaw]

Do they just mindlessly follow orders even when they are wrong?

Do they all justify wrong behaviour with ideology?

Yes. But don't forget police officers and FBI agents. American judges protecting moral laws could fit this classification too. And don't forget the citizens of a democratic vote who basically are responsible for these people being in positions of power.

Following rules and reasoning are two very different things. It's too bad the police for example can not be held responsible for felony kidnapping when arresting an innocent person or a judge executed for killing an innocent man.

 

[mugaliens]

Not the morale no. I question the logic of a bunch of mindless cannon fodder thinking exactly like another bunch of mindless cannon fodder and pretending they all have to do it to stay alive.

Good thing most soldiers aren't "mindless cannon fodder."

Following rules and reasoning are two very different things. It's too bad the police for example can not be held responsible for felony kidnapping when arresting an innocent person or a judge executed for killing an innocent man.

I agree they should be held responsible. Most are. Wrongful arrest is a crime in most, if not all states, but judges have little oversight, other than the fact they can be voted out of office after their judgements go off the deep end.

Unfortunately, that's "after," and appeals can be very expensive.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Yes. But don't forget police officers and FBI agents. American judges protecting moral laws could fit this classification too. And don't forget the citizens of a democratic vote who basically are responsible for these people being in positions of power.

Following rules and reasoning are two very different things. It's too bad the police for example can not be held responsible for felony kidnapping when arresting an innocent person or a judge executed for killing an innocent man.

You make a very good point.

 

[Ellie]

Judges dont decide weather a defendant in a capital crime is guilty or innocent.

 

[RickyH]

Judges dont decide weather a defendant in a capital crime is guilty or innocent.

depends on the country

 

[Ellie]

depends on the country

That is true, didnt want to really get that into things though.

And, yes, i took it for granted that people know about jury system.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

This is what I was referring to when I said that Afghan tribes are constantly switching sides:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/11/20091126102123782750.html

 

[iceaura]

quote=ricky] echo said it best on wp

[Those prisons aren't torture prisons you fool and they were never established to torture people. [/quote] They are and they were. That is public information now. The origins of the torture program, how it was developed and implemented, and the nature of its deployment into dozens of prisons outside the borders of the US, are no longer completely hidden and secret. Google is your friend, if you are really as naive as you claim.

The use of WP against people, as an incendiary weapon and without regard to any "smoke" production - an obvious and now officially admitted fact of US military operations in Iraq (and formerly in Vietnam etc) - is not made to have never happened by the convenience of "definitions".
”
So what? The treaty is weakly worded and ambiguous, and the US hasn't even signed that part of it. The illegality of WP is not "firmly established" here

The legality of using WP as an incendiary and chemical weapon against people in a civilian populated area is disputed, under several treaties the US has signed as well as US military and civilian law. That's why most observers think the US military denied it for so long, until cornered by physical evidence.

I don't understand the moral outrage over WP as this OMG SO HORRIBLE thing, so it's hard for me to get very excited about it.

Which explains your attempts here to describe them as "smoke rounds", and otherwise deflect an accurate description of their employment?

The people who do understand these matters were lied to by the US military. Somebody belongs in jail, for that alone.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

The legality of using WP as an incendiary and chemical weapon against people in a civilian populated area is disputed, under several treaties the US has signed as well as US military and civilian law. That's why most observers think the US military denied it for so long, until cornered by physical evidence.

Oh, so now WP is a "chemical weapon", too? Hm, ok.

Look. I'm aware of the conjecture and speculation that circulates the cheap seats. I've heard it all a thousand times before, and it doesn't impress me. You should stop responding to me as if it matters, and you should stop prevaricating as though the law backs up your position. It doesn't. Period. When that changes, we can have this discussion again.

Which explains your attempts here to describe them as "smoke rounds", and otherwise deflect an accurate description of their employment?

I posted an accurate description of their employment on the previous page. The WP munitions in the US arsenal are all designed for smoke generation. They are, by design, intended for screening friendly forces or for marking enemy positions. For example, the M825A1 155mm projectile. The way the WP segments are cut and laid around the burster charge affects their dissemination around the target in such a manner as to maximize smoke generation, both in time and in volume. A purpose-built WP incendiary shell would utilize smaller segments of WP for a faster, more intense burn, a resized burster charge, and probably an oxidizing agent. In any case, the existing WP munitions are not particularly well suited for incendiary use, when compared to a purpose-built incendiary munition like a Mk. 77 bomb.

These all may seem like academic points to you, but the treaty you referenced earlier makes a point to omit these types of munitions.

The people who do understand these matters were lied to by the US military. Somebody belongs in jail, for that alone.

Is this another slipshod legal argument? Or is it just how you "feel"?

 

[mike47]

Those who have no conscience should live in the jungle where they belong .

 

[GeoffP]

quote=ricky]The legality of using WP as an incendiary and chemical weapon against people in a civilian populated area is disputed, under several treaties the US has signed as well as US military and civilian law. That's why most observers think the US military denied it for so long, until cornered by physical evidence.

Where is it disputed? Are you referring to smoke rounds again?

 

[RickyH]

They are and they were. That is public information now. The origins of the torture program, how it was developed and implemented, and the nature of its deployment into dozens of prisons outside the borders of the US, are no longer completely hidden and secret. Google is your friend, if you are really as naive as you claim.

Oh military prisons? OR CIA AGAIN? I'm done with you. You honestly do have a reading problem.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, so now WP is a "chemical weapon", too?

That's how it was used, in the invasion of Iraq and at Fallujah and so forth, yes.

Look. I'm aware of the conjecture and speculation that circulates the cheap seats. I've heard it all a thousand times before, and it doesn't impress me.

And smarmy deflections like claiming the military's label on the stuff - as "smoke rounds" say - somehow establishes a reality of their use, don't impress me.

I posted an accurate description of their employment on the previous page. The WP munitions in the US arsenal are all designed for smoke generation.

The issue is how they have been used, not what they were designed for.

The use of WP in "shade and bake" is not speculation and conjecture. The fact that the military lied about that use (including with the same attempted deflection as you post here) is not speculation or conjecture either.

Oh military prisons? OR CIA AGAIN? I'm done with you. You honestly do have a reading problem.

I listed a few above - since you have no problems reading, you must have overlooked them. Here they are again: Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bucca, Bagram, Diego Garcia.

Only a partial list, but those are ones you can find information on most easily. There is still a fair amount of secrecy about the torture policies and programs established in the US military prisons, but those listed are well enough documented that you should have no real difficulty satisfying your curiosity.

 

[RickyH]

I listed a few above - since you have no problems reading, you must have overlooked them. Here they are again: Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bucca, Bagram, Diego Garcia.

Only a partial list, but those are ones you can find information on most easily. There is still a fair amount of secrecy about the torture policies and programs established in the US military prisons, but those listed are well enough documented that you should have no real difficulty satisfying your curiosity.

I've told you again and again these prisons weren't establisted to torture people, and when it happened they were arrested. What are YOU saying i'm missing? Your exhausted point that hold no water? Actually no, it shows americans have prosecuted soldiers for torture. Which basically robs you of your own defense. Thanks for enlightening my curiousity, especially since i was at bucca yesturday.. nope no torture there also.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

That's how it was used, in the invasion of Iraq and at Fallujah and so forth, yes.

Jesus, you're really grasping at straws.

And smarmy deflections like claiming the military's label on the stuff - as "smoke rounds" say - somehow establishes a reality of their use, don't impress me.

It was pretty obvious that I was fleshing out the nuances of their legal status - which you had clumsily overlooked - and not attempting to "deflect" anything.

The issue is how they have been used, not what they were designed for.

Yes, I understand that. But why is it even an issue? I still don't get the singling out of WP as a particularly horrible weapon.

 

[iceaura]

I've told you again and again these prisons weren't establisted to torture people, and when it happened they were arrested.

You are wrong. Look it up.

It was pretty obvious that I was fleshing out the nuances of their legal status - which you had clumsily overlooked

No, you were attempting to define the US military employment of WP munitions by their label as "smoke" (you overlooked "illumination"). Their legal status would rest on their use, not on the Pentagon's labeling.

Yes, I understand that. But why is it even an issue? I still don't get the singling out of WP as a particularly horrible weapon.

Then describe their use honestly, have the military own up to what it's been doing, correct people like Geoff and so many others here when they repeat the Pentagon's PR bs, and see what happens in court.

Because somebody would end up in court.

That's how it was used, in the invasion of Iraq and at Fallujah and so forth, yes.
”
Jesus, you're really grasping at straws.

It's a straw that would have some weight to it, if it were placed on the scales of formal Judicial proceedings, no?

 

[S.A.M.]

Since we have real soldiers here demonstrating the premise of the OP, I am curious to know if WP has ever been used on or near their own troops as a smoke bomb. Since that is all they will admit it is. And if they use it as a smoke bomb in areas where civilians are present what is their justification for it?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Since we have real soldiers here demonstrating the premise of the OP

Are you accusing military members on sciforums as being Nazi's Sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

If the shoe fits

Does it?

warning: possible goading by graphic imagery of collateral damages from "smoke bombs"

 

[Echo3Romeo]

No, you were attempting to define the US military employment of WP munitions by their label as "smoke" (you overlooked "illumination").

I made no claim that we don't prescribe WP for off-label use, and went on to explain what a shake and bake mission was. Granted, a preponderance of WP's contribution to a shake and bake still comes from the smoke, but it isn't considered a smoke mission.

Also, WP isn't used for illumination. I mentioned illumination rounds on the previous page because sometimes their parachutes don't deploy, and the magnesium flares fall to the ground and start fires.

Their legal status would rest on their use, not on the Pentagon's labeling.

In reality, their legal status rests on neither. But if the US were a signatory to Protocol III of the CCWC, and the Protocol did not specifically exclude munitions that have only secondary incendiary effects, you would have an argument that could hold some water.

It's a straw that would have some weight to it, if it were placed on the scales of formal Judicial proceedings, no?

Not really. From a legal standpoint, chemical weapons are weapons whose primary effects rely on their toxic properties, much like incendiary weapons are weapons whose primary effects rely on their combustible properties.