You want to compare the assault of a teenager which has happened in basically every war that has ever happened to the dropping of chemical weapons, mass executions of villages, sexual assault of women and children? As I said, British troops have committed crimes, but not on that scale.
Well, I think it depends on how far back you wanna go, v. If we are keeping score of war crimes, the United States has a LONG way to go to catch up to Britain.
I totally support your opinion, Cheese. Back to the old times, the military has always been for the protection of a nation. In war, if you want to win something, you've got to lose some. Either it is a win-lose or lose-lose. The citizens suffer the consequences. Superpowers, your nations might be, but please please choose the right decisions. Why would your soldiers be sent on the other side of the world? Are those spy satellites not enough? Sometimes I'm thinking of the military activity in an area as a means to intimidate or show force to other nations.
I'm talking modern history were the people who committed the crimes could possibly still be alive to stand trial. I have no illusions that the British have been saints, the British empire committed atrocity after atrocity.
lol ...right? Always taking about "evil America" don't forget Britain used to be the evil empire (and for a really long time) Britain's history way more imperialistic then America's iPhone
Churchill did many an evil thing, he almost caused a civil war within Ireland too. What's your point? He ain't alive to stand trial. If you want to talk history then let's talk history. How old is Britain as a country compared to America? Britain has committed far more crimes in history but America is a country that was technically created by terrorists and built upon the genocide of one race and the enslavment of another. This thread isn't a comparison thread of history that happened that long ago, it's about the modern age. Like it or not, in the modern age American soldiers have caused disgraceful atrocities that shouldn't of been done in this day and age, especially not by a "civilised country". American soldiers in Vietnam were no better than Nazis.
Actually, military power has historically been used to project power and influence. If the U.S. changed the way it used its military, it would be a departure from the norm. However, much of the world operates this way. The biggest dogs in the room will always swing their sacks around for as long as no viable contender exists. But I do not support that. I think it's archaic and barbaric. War is just insanity. And chaos. There are no other words to describe it. I think if the decision makers had to lead our troops into combat, we'd be much more peaceful than we are.
Actually, v, this thread is about the military in general. There's no mention of any specific time period in the OP. You don't get to throw out hundreds of years of British history just because it doesn't support your argument that American troops are more brutal than British troops. In fact, I don't even think one could reasonably make the argument that living American troops are worse than living British troops. As the barcode said, there are plenty of counter examples.
U guys shud read the Powell doctrine, not in use now but explains when and how we should use force against other countries.
I throw out Britains hundreds of years the same way I throw out America's genocide of native Americans, slavery and the dropping of nukes. Because there is nobody to stand trial for them. I'm talking only about modern history because we can still hold the people accountable and punish them for it. As I said, British troops have of course committed crimes, as have French troops or whoever else, but neither of those countries have incidents that are comparable to chemical weapons, the massacres of entire villages or the detainment and torture of POWs and or suspected terrorists.
Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support?
Nice to see forumns popping with some intellegent and mostly respectful Comments. *pulls up a chair and listens to the discussion*
Authorization to use military force The totals in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA. Lee was the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the bill. Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig, R–ID, and Jesse Helms, R–NC). I dunno if it's fair to blame it all on Bush
Thanks, V. And wake, bush is just the start. I think many people belong behind bars. Interesting figures on the vote, though. I'm surprised it was so popular. I wonder why