From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Wed May 24 2000 - 20:50:22 MDT
Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/NewsRT052400.htm
>
> Comments?
Yes, I've included my comments, mainly pointing out where the writer is
either forgetting something, or is completely wrong.
> MORALITY OF NATO’S BALKAN VICTORY
>
> by Raju G. C. Thomas
>
> Historical Justice
>
> The victors of wars habitually claim that God and morality were on their side, and that they were incapable of committing crimes. Only the anquished are> war criminals deserving of all the punishment. In the Versailles Peace treaty of 1919, at end of the First World War, Germany was punished severely through the> imposition of exorbitant economic reparations. More significantly it was compelled, on French insistence, to accept a “guilt clause.” Some 19,000 soldiers were> identified by the Entente powers as war criminals at the end of the First World War, none of them British, French, Russian, or American.
My comments:
The American Army regularly punished its own who were found by courts
martial to have committed war crimes, though I cannot speak for the
British, French, or Russian armies (note that the Russian Army had
pulled out of the war in 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution and signed
their own armistice with Germany separate from that of the western
allies, one that included no guilt clause, and which made no demands for
war crimes to be punished, indeed, the Bolsheviks punished the Czarist
army officers themselves far more harshly than any other army officers
were in the other armies, including the Germans.)
>
> The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Tokyo and Yokohama, the demolition of Dresden along with its civilians, were not
> subject to war crimes trials. The destruction of the people and land of Vietnam over a period of ten years in the name of freedom are all but forgotten. There were no> apologies made or compensations paid, but instead the Vietnamese were subjected to American economic sanctions for the next quarter-century.
My comments:
Strategic carpet bombing of cities that contained defense facilities was
considered by the US to be barbaric, at least in europe, which is why
the US Army Air Forces all used the secret Norden bombing sight for far
more precise bombing attacks on true military targets, while the
british, who bombed at night, continued to use carpet bombing due to
their bombers innacuracy, and the navigational limitations of flying at
night. Carpet bombing of Japanese targets by the US was considered
unfortunate, but considering the psychotic fanatical loyalty to the
emperor of most Japanese people at the time, it was considered
necessary, and considering the lack of respect for the Laws of War that
the Japanese showed toward the Chinese people for eight years of prior
warmaking, it was obvious they did not care to operate by the laws of
war. Considering the lack of respect for human rights shown by the
Germans for Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Ukrainians, and others, it seems
obvious in retrospect that the Germans had no reasonable expectation to
see the allies respect the human rights that the Germans dismissed so
willfully.
Likewise, in Vietnam, the US was assisting an internationally recognised
government fight an insurgency backed by a foreign power (North Vietnam,
Russia, and China). That the North Vietnamese Communists and the
southern geurrilla communists refused to operate by the Laws of War when
it was inconvenient for them to do so, but willingly hid behind them
when it was to their advantage shows that they were not to be trusted to
obey any international convention, and the fact they treated captured
soldiers and pilots not as prisoners of war should be treated under the
Geneva Conventions, but instead labeled them as 'pirates' and 'air
pirates' so that they could legally torture, maim, brutalize, and kill
with impunity, as well as the fact that the southern viet cong
guerrillas frequently attacked completely peaceful civilian targets,
non-combatants, and hospital facilities with terrorist bombs illustrates
that they had and have no right to claim any sort of victimhood under
the Laws of War.
>
> As the Gulf War drew to its close and Iraq accepted an initial cease-fire that the US rejected, American and British bombers continued to kill thousands of
> Iraqi soldiers fleeing across the open desert with no defense. This does not qualify as a “Srebrenica.” And nobody will know how many wounded Iraqi soldiers were> buried alive in the sand by American military bulldozers after the cease-fire because it was too much hassle to check every body lying in the sand.
My Comments:
The Iraqis did not accept a cease fire until a full day AFTER the US
declared unilateral cease fire had gone into effect. The US declared
that it would cease operations at a given time and date, and the Iraqis
did not respond until after US combat operations ceased. To counter the
claims of the author, we will never know how many Kuwaiti women were
saved from short lives as pleasure prisoners of Iraqi military units due
to the air power induced panic imposed on the Iraqi forces. The raping
and pillaging that the Iraqis committed on the Kuwaiti people, IMHO,
obviated any moral requirement that the Iraqi soldiers be treated with
any respect that normal soldiers deserve. Those soldiers were not
unarmed, they were not non-combatants. Any who surrendered were given
sanctuary, safety, shelter and food (which is far more than they
received when they were released back to the Iraqi high command, who had
most shot). Under the Laws of War, any armed soldier is a legitimate
target, irrespective if he is charging or retreating. A wild dog who
flees is just as likely to come back for another nip if you don't break
him of the habit.
> Some 1.7 million> innocent Iraqis, mainly children, have died slow deaths because of economic sanctions. But there are no CNN cameras to record this tragedy, and besides they died> because of well-intentioned US policy. Such pain, suffering and tragedy do not count in the American concept of morality. Meanwhile, Iraq is bombed routinely,
> killing untold numbers of soldiers manning military installations or merely sleeping in their barracks, together with other “unintended” Iraqi civilians. These do not
> count as war crimes. They are legitimate targets or collateral damage.
yes they are. The children who die cannot be blamed on us. Saddam is
quite free to import however much food and medicine as he desires.
Unfortunately, he turns around and sells that food and medecine on the
black market to generate money to pay for more weapons, weapons systems,
and for building his weapons of mass destruction. This silly argument is
much like the terrorist who shoots a hostage and says to the
negotiator,"Look at what you made me do."
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:49 MST