One thing, which is good to realize is that the U.S military or political leadership might not be so intrested with the civilian casualties, when their own troops are at danger..

After all - in practice - the political leadeship hold political responsibility only the american casualties. Heck, they don't even count or try to measure the (collateral) damage they have caused.

The direct or indirect civilian death incidents of the war is with the significance of one hundred thousand. Still, the greatest political weight is constantly with the death of 1500 American soldier. There is a magnitude difference of two zeros. It gives us an estimation of the political weight of a single Iraqian victim.. It is not a lot..

I would not be suprised, if U.S. troops would have policies, which are careless or even arrogant toward Iraqian civilians, whenever the American lives are considered. Even to limits, which would not be normally acceptable.

Still, the Iraqians might not have so many friend with these issues. Soldiers care for themselves. Military - of course - keeps good care of its 'boys'. Political leaders have all the reasons to avoid American victims, when Iraqian victims are of much lesser importance. With the American public - the American soldiers are their relatives, friends and neightbours. What common the public has with the normal Iraqians? They have easily problems with sympatizing the Iraqian victims, if they ever hear about them. Pentagon does not count collateral damage.

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

But the war IS illegal. Under international law, you can NOT start a pre-emptive war based upon false suspisions. The person who should be being charged with war crimes is George W. Bush.

Now the soldiers manning the checkpoints are doing their duty, and usually in an honorable manner. I can't comment on the 30+ civilians killed, because each case would need an analysis on facts I do not know. However, Since the war IS illegal, and this man is being ordered to shoot unarmed civilians, I can understand where he thinks there is a large discrepancy between what he signed up for and what he is being ordered to do. People join the military to defend our country. They trust that the Government is not going to go tell them to shoot unarmed woman and children in a foreign country for no justifiable reason. The war in Iraq is NOT defending our country, no matter how many times the right wing war mongers say it is.

Exactly. People die. Soldiers are trained to 'break things and kill people.'

misunderstandment? What do you think would happen in the US if a speeding car tries to go through a police roadblock? Massey is not talking about mistakes, he's there to testify to violations of human rights and the Geneva Conventions under his command. I disagree with HIM.


Do you know ANY soldiers in Iraq?

Exactly why I called Hinzman a coward.No, dear. Hinzman didn't go. Perhaps a slower reread is in order.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

You are consumed by the dark side.

Myopicmouse wrote [quote][Mr Hinzman first requested conscientious objector status in 2002 before learning he was to be posted to Afghanistan, where he eventually made 18 combat parachute jumps. /quote]

The question is did Mr. Hinzman follow the proper procedures for achieving conscientious and did he present goog evidence for grating that status ? Just because one asks for such status it does not mean that one gets it just by applying for it under the UCMJ

see this