Victims of America's dirty war,are still being born

True; some tribes even allied with the Europeans against other tribes.

 

It is called collateral damage and it is an unfortunate reality of war. It is the same as Israeli children killed and maimed by the Palestinians. It is a part of every armed conflict and it is ugly. No doubt about it. Unforutnately, it isn't any news to anybody. It has been that way for millenia.

 

Its Certainly not the same .

I'd prefer not to compare numbers , however as you've only mentioned one side , may I point out that FAR MORE non-Israeli /Palestinian children have been killed / maimed /terrorised + tormented by a well-armed , American financed , Israeli Army and Airforce.

" Collateral damage " ? Hmmm.

 

It is not the U.S.'s or Israels fault that their Islamic Imperialist enemies hide behind women and children, the U.S. and Israel do not intentionally target civilians the Islamic Imperialist swine intentionally kill as many innocent men, women, and children as possible to strike fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Now back to the OP which is nothing but BS propaganda debunked long ago by numerous scientific inquiries.

 

There was no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence in that article if it did you would have copy/pasted it but you didn't, because you couldn't because it doesn't it exist in that article or anywhere else.

 

No actually it wasn't as there isn't a single scrap of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence for the assertion that the U.S. ever put so much as a dime into the Khmer Rouge.

Gee now you're posting "references" with no actual facts. Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me, either present one single scrap of evidence for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) assertion or admit to your lies. Come on where's the congressional committee which found we supported them? Where's the documents uncovered through FOI? Show me something, anything. You won't because you can't because your assertions as per usual are complete and utter horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

WP is a perfectly legal incendiary. The OP was about DU not just WP or maybe Robert Fisk is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded that he just conflated the two in his propaganda piece because that is the only logical conclusion one could make unless Fisk is asserting that the non-radioactive WP is causing cancer at rates greater than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Quite the charmer aren't you? Tell you what sonny, you refute what I posted instead of hurling infantile insults like a petulant kid, and then we can have an adult debate.

 

BS...Goldstone proved that the fascist IDF used Palestinian civilian's as human shields and deliberately target men, women and children.

 

Obviously your reading and comprehension skills are lacking. You know what Sunshine, you can take reading and comprehension course at any community college.

From the article-

"The U.S. government's secret partnership with the Khmer Rouge grew out of the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the U.S.-worried by the shift in the Southeast Asian balance of power-turned once again to geopolitical confrontation. It quickly formalized an anti-Vietnamese, anti-Soviet strategic alliance with China-an alliance whose disastrous effects have been most evident in Cambodia. For the U.S., playing the "China card" has meant sustaining the Khmer Rouge as a geopolitical counterweight capable of destabilizing the Hun Sen government in Cambodia and its Vietnamese allies".

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_PolPot.html

 

I would suspect that the anecdotal evidence of someone who lived under the Communist Vietnamese government for five years, and who has an avowed hatred of Communism, might be a little more impartial than an American academics estimates. The Vietnamese man does not have an agenda to justify his nation's brutalities and war crimes. And in any case, assuming his estimates to have any substance, these atrocities were alleged to have happened in the 1950s, not following the liberation of Saigon (the period to which I was referring).

 

In 2003 I was in Da Nang awaiting a train for Ho Chi Minh City. I was having a bite to eat in a small cafe when this Vietnamese guy, who spoke good English asked if he could join me. I bought a couple of beers, we made some small talk, then he told me his story.

When he was 16, ARVN soldiers marched into his village, put a gun to his head and told him he was conscripted. Three months later he was captured by the VC, gun put to his head and told he will fight for the VC. This is rare as usually the VC executed ARVN soldiers. They must have been running out of man power by then or it could be because of his age. He fought for the VC for nine months until the end of the war.

One interesting thing came out of his conversation. He said the decade or so of war with America isn't mentioned in any great detail in Vietnamese modern history.

 

You didn't post a thing to refute, you posted unsubstantiated claims, post one single scrap of evidence for U.S. funding, training, or arming of the Khmer Rouge, how about some documents from the Freedom of Information Act, how about the results of a Congressional Inquiry? How about a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing?

Oh and yes I'm sure that non-nuclear WP is causing mutations and birth defects. It's actually that Robert Fisk is trying to deceive the reader because he knows the DU BS has been thoroughly debunked or it is that he is just so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retarded that he doesn't realize that he mistook WP for DU.

 

Thank you for that considered response. I agree with much of what you say, but I must also point out that we have the Geneva Conventions to avoid the deliberate (even should we consider it necessary) killing of non-combatants. Certain clauses within those conventions are very specific about the measures which must be taken to avoid so-called 'collateral damage' (one of the most evil terms I have encountered). An armed force may not attack an installation in the knowledge that civilians will be killed or injured, even if that installation is an otherwise legitimate target, capable of supporting the enemy's aims. The attacking of predominantly civilian targets - such as Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki comprise war crimes. Even within a declared war between equally armed sides, military necessity cannot be held to supersede humanity. Where there have been undeclared hostilities, and illegal invasions, such as Vietnam and Iraq, this applies more so. And it is not only the United States which is guilty of these war crimes. Britain and Australia have been willing participants. Not to mention the Nazis, the Japanese, etc.

Again, I agree with much of that. But I would contend that policy decisions over a long period of time have fuelled resentment of the United States as an entity. Going back as far as the totally unnecessary War of 1812, and attempted invasions of Canada, through the invasions and occupations of the Philippines and Hawaii, to the actions in Panama, Grenada, the support of Nicaraguan terrorism, to the adventures in South East Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East - all costing countless civilian lives - have set the stage for the way the US is viewed today right across the world.

My experiences in your country have indicated that this is grossly unfair to the average American (who is as decent as the average citizen in any nation, and more generous than most,) and is one of the many wrongs committed by successive US administrations. If I were an American, I should be taking a close look at my systems of governance, my concerns with national security and predominance, and my adulation and protection of the military. These are all characteristics which might easily lend themselves to Fascism.

 

The Goldstone report was a freaking joke it looked at the conflict as if it took place in a vacuum and ignored the tactics of the Islamic Imperialists of hiding behind women and children intentionally when they looked at civilian casualties and in fact Goldstone has come out against his own report stating that it was not Israeli policy to intentionally target civilians.

 

Gee look at all that (*)(*)(*)(*)ing well referenced evidenced, the report from the Congressional Inquiry, the money trail, documents recovered from the Freedom of Information Act, wow you've blown me away with your unsubstantiated assertions from "thirdworldtraveler" a notorious far left/communist publication. At least when they have that hack Chomsky writing for them he'll provide citations. FYI I was a political science/international relations major, and your article wouldn't be accepted for a Freshman paper, it provides no citations whatsoever let alone any primary sources with those little things we in the academic world like to call facts and evidence.

 

Yes second hand anecdotal evidence from some anonymous guy on an internet forum trumps actual statistics.

 

The Geneva Conventions make more sense with conventional war. They aren't so sensible during asymmetrical war.

That being said, I don't really take the whole "war crimes" thing seriously. In practice, all it means is that you lost a war and the victor wants to punish you more. It's an idea not consistently applied enough to be of much worth, regardless of what various governments want to say about it. The examples you point out show how we're hypocritical about it, but honestly, every major power is.

If nothing else, I can agree that we need to limit our interventionism considerably.

 

Yes, well seeing as the 'arrangement' with the Khmer Rouge was not for public consumption I guess we can put it in the same category as Israeli nuclear weapons, whose existence Israel neither confirms nor denies. The truth, however, is well established despite Israel's ambiguity on the subject.

 

lol so I guess since you don't have a scrap of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence for your assertion we can stick it back up your ass from where you pulled it.

There is evidence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal and their own government does not deny it.

In cases like this there would have been a congressional inquiry or we would have come across that little thing called evidence in FOIA requests but you don't have one single fact or scrap of evidence to substantiate your claims, but hey go on believing whatever the (*)(*)(*)(*) your read on the internet regardless of conspicuous lacks of facts and evidence.

 

This is all a canard and more of your BS. The Goldstone report, along with others by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the League of Arab States, included accounts of the killings of civilians by Israel Defence Forces in a cold, calculated and deliberate manner. Goldstone subsequently issued a supposed partial 'retraction', apparently following intense Israeli pressure. But he did not withdraw the report and his co-authors stood by their work.

http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/04/05/is-there-really-a-goldstone-retraction/

 

Actually the Israeli government have a policy of neither denying nor confirming possessing nuclear weapons, Mr. Israel Expert. And do try to calm down; if you can't debate without insults then, frankly, that only underlines your inadequacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/world/middleeast/25israel.html Paragraph 5.

 

Human shields, eh? Here's an example of brave, fearless IDF troops using the same human shields, hiding behind children, that you accuse the Palestinians of doing. I notice you avoid mentioning those occurences. By the way, did Goldstone say the Palestinians have a deliberate policy of using human shields? He was equally condemnatory of both Israel and Hamas for human rights abuses-including the use of human shields.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/israeli-soldiers-human-shield-avoid-jail I have many more examples of Israeli propriety.

 

As I said not even the Israeli government denies it.

I'm not the one who constantly makes unsubstantiated claims and refuses to back them up or admit that I was wrong.

What this has to do with anything I have no idea.

 

The Goldstone Report was a one sided joke that even Goldstone himself now denies.

Making someone open a bag is not the same thing as using a human shield, regardless the Israeli Supreme Court has outlawed such behavior while Hamas leadership proudly proclaims their support of the policy.

 

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Yes, Israel's own courts have convicted soldiers of using human shields. This is an illegal human rights abuse as you well know, irrespective of whether a bag is being opened as you allege, or a youth is forced, at gunpoint, to precede soldiers searching homes.
Where is the documentary evidence that Hamas officially support the use of human shields?