OT - US Soldier kills 16 Civilians in Afghanistan

[Targan]

Originally Posted by B.T.

From my personal point of view it does not matter, that he is American. This kind of crime would have been just as horrible, if it had been done by an Australian, a Brit, a Finn, or a German.

Ain't that the truth.

Originally Posted by B.T.

Normally I do not participate on threads like this. Why? I'm German. Whenever you talk about such things, you're dancing on thin ice, if you're German. Some "wise guy" usually mentiones the war crimes of the Nazis, and that's the end to a lot of discussions.

I feel sorry for young Germans (and Japanese for that matter) when it comes to discussing WWII. Every German I've spoken to who is my age or younger has expressed horror and disgust at what the Nazis did. I'm sure there were many Germans at the time, among those who knew what was happening, who were shocked and disgusted too. Young Japanese are a slightly different case. In my experience, most young Japanese people seem to know very little about what their military did during WWII.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Normally I do not participate on threads like this. Why? I'm German. Whenever you talk about such things, you're dancing on thin ice, if you're German. Some "wise guy" usually mentiones the war crimes of the Nazis, and that's the end to a lot of discussions.

This attitude always annoys me. Sure the Nazis commited many, many warcrimes, yet the war ended 67 years ago! People living in Gerany today had nothing to do with it and are now welcomed members of westerrn society with an honourable and skilled military that has assisted the UN and NATO in conflicts across the world. The RAF and Luftwaffe flew together over the skies of the the former Yugoslavia in missions to save civilians.

Also Germany was not alone in the war crime's business, Russians raped and murdered their way across Europe to Berlin, my own country was guilty of turning German cities into burned out necropoli with the specific intention of killing civilians.

None of this means that a German ddoes not have the right to speak his mind on a topic regarding inhumane acts commited in modern times, or any time for that matter. It's time folks stopped putting an entire guilt trip on a nation for actons commited 60 years ago. The same goes with the Americans and slavery, the British and colonialism and all the other bullshit that gets dredged up in internet flame wars.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Some "wise guy" usually mentiones the war crimes of the Nazis, and that's the end to a lot of discussions.

It's called Godwin's Law and is related to argumentum ad Hitlerum (which is an ad hominem attack). In a debate, the person who first invokes Hitler has usually already lost his argument.

It's been found to be used in just about any topic of debate.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Come around for what should be something fun............ Nah. I get threads like this usually started by the same handful of people. Ones that seldom participate in the game discussions. Usually with the same recurring theme.

Americans, you did this wrong.
Americans, you can't do that right.
Americans, look what you did today!

Once again we won all the battles in Afghanistan, and we are losing the War on the floor of Congress.

Are the Politicians that are manipulating the Rules of Engagement on a day to day basis going to accept some responsibility? Not a chance.

Are Soldiers Angry. The sure as hell are..........

To go through the all that, for your fellow Soldiers to get killed, and then everything becomes for nothing as a matter of political expediency.

Then some sanctimonious ass wants to remind you; how it all could have been done better, if the ones running things were not American.

Right now, I am asking myself what I am doing here.

1) You are coming across very much as a troll trying to turn this, so far very civilised, thread into a flame war.

2) I find it strange that the ONLY person going on about anti-americanism is in fact an American. All the non-Americans participating in this thread are doing so ina rational, non-offensive manner.

During the American war of indepence, the Americans lost most of their battles against the British and yet still won the war. This theme is common in many wars in which one nation pursues military aims in another nation far from their home soil against a country in which they do not have support from the natives. Then again if politicians ever studied history before starting a war w'd be living in a blissful state of world peace right now.

[Medic]

ArmySGT, while I understand the frustration of the soldiers' better than one might realize, I can only say it does in no way give them the right to go on a booze-induced rampage, killing civilians who they should be protecting and working with. If, what has now happened, happens, they have failed the civilians, themselves and pulled the service of theirs down in the same disgrace they have fallen in to. There is, never was and never will be any justification for such action regardless of the soldiers nationality, branch of service, political or religious belief, personal grievances or losses of his unit. Such act can only be seen as a war crime and a crime against humanity. No one can change that fact, there is no explanation that can turn things around the other way.

If you refer to my comments about the U.S. troops having pulled some rather stupid tricks, you must understand, the world is far more transparent nowadays than it was a couple decades ago. U.S. military and political leadership has taken an active role in global politics and while some of it is commendable, some of it is seen as bullying by other nations. You are not the only nation with democracy. And now, I will ceased the discussion about anti-American notions, while I hope we can all intelligently discuss the matters like this. As said earlier, they are not completely off-topic.

[TicToc]

Gentlemen, allow me to apologize for inciting this issue to begin with. It was not my intent. So that I may explain. I have been in the military for 13 years. I have deployed 3 times in the last 4 years, two of those have been to OEF. I control air strikes from forward locations (forward usually being in that muddy/dusty/hot/cold/wet hole right next to my Infantry brothers.) I am not special, I am not unique, I am however tired of what I see as bashing. The post that I made originally in this thread was my first. I have however been reading the site for weeks and it is no less than the third such thread. Please do not misunderstand my intent. everyone has the right to say and do as they please and I had/have no intention of fighting that. I do however feel that it is my place and my right to correct inaccuracies, especially where they will or may lead to a misunderstanding of the situation as a whole, or if it is purposefully inflammatory. If the intent was to bring up war crimes in the T2K world, or what psychological stress can push men to do than I would understand that and take no issue with it. That however is not how I perceived the threads intent. Regardless, in my typical tactless way I attempted to make a correction that would have been better left alone and if not left alone handled in a more polite fashion.

As for my feelings on the situation. I haven't followed it closely so I am not sure of the exact details, or if the exact details are even clear yet. What I can say is that events like this should not happen, but the reality is that they will happen. Without citing the specific background of the Soldier in question, you cannot expect men to deploy, come home train, deploy, come home only to go back into what they know is going to be pre-deployment training, to see they comrades and brothers killed by weapons that he cannot defend against or engage an enemy that he cannot see. When he does see his enemy that enemy is dressed as a civilian, is surrounded be non combatants, and will use those innocent people to his advantage by putting them in harms way to save his own life. He is fighting an enemy without that is without honor, that murders and maims his own people in reprisal and for political gain. Please do not misunderstand, this is not a sob story or a pity part for servicemen. Nor is it an excuse for an atrocity. That being said war is a terrible thing and it does terrible things to people (especially when they are not cared for properly). So long as human engage in the art or armed conflict men will commit crimes and atrocities while engaged in that conflict. Not an excusal, a matter of understanding the human condition under those circumstances.

[Webstral]

I’m not going to weigh in on creating a separate category for OT threads regarding current military events. I doubt my ability to be neutral, so I’m going to recuse myself.

There are times when I feel like we vets are bit too sensitive to seeing our deeds and misdeeds discussed openly. We’re often resentful that much criticism and judgment are heaped upon us by people who are safe and snug in their living rooms, free to enjoy the blessings of plenty and liberty with no other contribution than a grudging payment of taxes. We’re annoyed that the people of nation we serve claim not to like the war but otherwise sit on their hands when it comes to putting pressure on elected officials in any meaningful way. We’re vexed by the often inept strategic leadership, both military and civilian. We’re outraged that the media focuses almost exclusively on negative press. It’s bad enough that every misdeed undoes ten good deeds in-theater; when the media reports only (or very nearly so) on misdeed and misfortunes, the whole world gets the impression that American soldiers are ignorant, raging thugs and that American policy is based on a Roman model. We reach a point at which the mere mention of misdeeds evokes a strong negative reaction in part least because the public in general cannot contextualize said misdeeds.

We have to remember that we swore to uphold the Constitution, which means that we swore to uphold free speech that will often make us unhappy. I strongly dislike the idea that openly racist organizations and individuals can spill their bile such that my children will be exposed to it. In my heart, I feel there’s something wrong when Neo-Nazis have the right to assemble, march, and speak publicly. However, I accept that a free society must tolerate much which disgusts us.

We veterans have to choose how we’re going to wage the never-ending struggle of free speech. Whenever we react with negative emotion, we reinforce certain stereotypes about us. The citizens who are least able to contextualize bad press about us are the ones who need most to be impressed that we are, by and large, an organization of dedicated professionals upholding American ideals to the best of our ability under very trying circumstances. Just as our parent society struggles with criminal behaviors, so our armed forces struggle with behaviors that are responses to the unique stressors of the job we do. Our civilians need to understand this; and we need to be the teachers in this regard.

In our digital age in which there are no more safe havens from the eye of the camera, our every misdeed is going to be reported on. The press is going to run with these stories because they sell copy. The American people soak them up because that’s human nature; for the same reason that gladiatorial events, public hangings, and all manner of cruel spectacles have attracted crowds, the ugly side of war will attract far, far more attention than the operations that go the way they are supposed to. We want good outcomes, but we can’t turn our eyes away from bad ones. We military professionals either can rail against this reality or we can work with it the same way we should adjust our approach to a changing battlefield.

Note: I say "we", but I'm not part of the organization anymore. I'm not even on the IRR roster. Anyone who tells me that I don't have any skin in the game anymore is right. I'm not ever going to deploy to Afghanistan. So my remarks have to be contextualized as those of a well-informed outsider.

[Medic]

Very well said, Webstral.

One of the problems is the press as it, while doing good work on some things, tends to go for scandal journalism on the others. There's a saying, the millions of flies can't be wrong - crap must taste good. It is exactly why the journalists write their scandalous articles. They sell because people want to read them. Journalism is no longer about only delivering news and information - it is that and making a good sale so the owners of the magazine or newspaper get more money. With those, the pressure on the press increases and they have to come up with new ways to sell.

One of those, used at least in Finland and Sweden by the tabloid press is making up an outrageous headline that has very little in common with the actual story. If it was any other product than news they are selling, the consumer rights officials would cry out about wrongful advertising.

[weswood]

Thank you for the apology for coming on strong. It shows you're not just trolling for a reaction.

I agree with you that sometimes it seems America gets picked on by the media, but you have to admit lately the U.S military has been making some bonehead mistakes. This sergeant going berserk, the dumbass Marines with the SS signal on thier flag, and pissing on the bodies of thier enemy.

I'm not slamming the military, I myself am a former Marine and an Army brat. I was around or in the military from before I was born until my late 20's. Most of the members on this forum are former or current military of various countries. I'm not sure how many have combat experience, I don't. We have ALL done something stupid at one time or another, but there's a difference between stupid and illegal. Yes, I know using the Nazi SS symbols isn't illegal, but to associate the Marine Corps with a bunch of murdering hooligans? For that is what the SS will always be seen as.

This is one of the best forums I've ever been a member of, even if some of us are a little hardheaded. Welcome to the group, I'm sure you'll make valuable contributions.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I’m not going to weigh in on creating a separate category for OT threads regarding current military events. I doubt my ability to be neutral, so I’m going to recuse myself.

There are times when I feel like we vets are bit too sensitive to seeing our deeds and misdeeds discussed openly. We’re often resentful that much criticism and judgment are heaped upon us by people who are safe and snug in their living rooms, free to enjoy the blessings of plenty and liberty with no other contribution than a grudging payment of taxes. We’re annoyed that the people of nation we serve claim not to like the war but otherwise sit on their hands when it comes to putting pressure on elected officials in any meaningful way. We’re vexed by the often inept strategic leadership, both military and civilian. We’re outraged that the media focuses almost exclusively on negative press. It’s bad enough that every misdeed undoes ten good deeds in-theater; when the media reports only (or very nearly so) on misdeed and misfortunes, the whole world gets the impression that American soldiers are ignorant, raging thugs and that American policy is based on a Roman model. We reach a point at which the mere mention of misdeeds evokes a strong negative reaction in part least because the public in general cannot contextualize said misdeeds.

We have to remember that we swore to uphold the Constitution, which means that we swore to uphold free speech that will often make us unhappy. I strongly dislike the idea that openly racist organizations and individuals can spill their bile such that my children will be exposed to it. In my heart, I feel there’s something wrong when Neo-Nazis have the right to assemble, march, and speak publicly. However, I accept that a free society must tolerate much which disgusts us.

We veterans have to choose how we’re going to wage the never-ending struggle of free speech. Whenever we react with negative emotion, we reinforce certain stereotypes about us. The citizens who are least able to contextualize bad press about us are the ones who need most to be impressed that we are, by and large, an organization of dedicated professionals upholding American ideals to the best of our ability under very trying circumstances. Just as our parent society struggles with criminal behaviors, so our armed forces struggle with behaviors that are responses to the unique stressors of the job we do. Our civilians need to understand this; and we need to be the teachers in this regard.

In our digital age in which there are no more safe havens from the eye of the camera, our every misdeed is going to be reported on. The press is going to run with these stories because they sell copy. The American people soak them up because that’s human nature; for the same reason that gladiatorial events, public hangings, and all manner of cruel spectacles have attracted crowds, the ugly side of war will attract far, far more attention than the operations that go the way they are supposed to. We want good outcomes, but we can’t turn our eyes away from bad ones. We military professionals either can rail against this reality or we can work with it the same way we should adjust our approach to a changing battlefield.

Note: I say "we", but I'm not part of the organization anymore. I'm not even on the IRR roster. Anyone who tells me that I don't have any skin in the game anymore is right. I'm not ever going to deploy to Afghanistan. So my remarks have to be contextualized as those of a well-informed outsider.

Well said.

Now I'dlike to add a civilian's perspective. I grew up on RAF bases, my father was a sergeant and all i wanted to do was follow his footsteps. As soon as I recieved my GCSE results after leaving school at 16, I walked straight into a careers office, while the aptitude test and my school grades showed I was perfectly able and suited to following an RAF career I was turned down because I had a history of epilepsy as a teenager. Admitedly I was devastated, however I was still determined to do something so I joined NAAFI, if I couldn't serve then I'd damn well serve the services and enjoyed a ten year career with that company till and I still work for ESS their successor.

I have someting of a unique perspective, wile I am a civilian I have lived and worked my entire life on military bases. I was part of RAFWA (Royal Air Force Wargaming association) while working at RAF Marham and that's, iornicly enough, how I was introduced to Twilight 2k.

One thing I have observed is a certain arrogance in many military and ex-military personel, many do seem to feel that anyone who has not served has no right to criticise or comment on those who do. I argue against this attitude, we live in a democracy and military service is a choice. Most of us choose not to serve the military, some of us (like myself) find that choice denied to them in the first place, yet we are all still citizens 9or in the case of the UK, subjects) with the same rights to free speech and expression.

In many cases people of other nations judge us by our military and by our military actions, we resent it when we are judged harshly because of the actions of a minority within our military. I have been insulted and slagged off by Americans who feel some of the more shameful events from Northern Ireland's history represents the thoughts and feelings of my entire nation.

Whether we like it or not, whether veterans like it or not, what our military does today is how the entire world (however wrongly) will judge us and we have a right as citizens and subjects of our respective nations to demand the highest standards from our military personel. Now in the case of both my own country and that of America, new Zealand, Australia and all the other western nations, our militaries continue to exhibit the highest of standards and do us all proud. When things go wrong, when our soldiers drop the ball and exhibit behaviour and morals that are wrong and in some case repugnant, we have the right to feel outraged.

The biggest fault lies in the media, as webstral mentioned, they are so very good at giving full coverage to a soldier's misdeeds yet publishing stories about the good our soldiers do (both British and American) seems so very difficult. The public are left with a very one-sided view of things and it can come across badly.

That being said, we civilians have every right to criticise our military, every right to criticise our government's strategy and our military's tactics. However we civilians have a moral obligation to do so respectfully and to understand that the average fighting soldier is not responsible for the bigger picture. I hope that we will NEVER again see the disgraceful way American Vietnam vets where treated, I feel proud that in my own country we are very good at focussing our ire against the government and senior officers rather than at our soldiers.

[kota1342000]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Normally I do not participate on threads like this. Why? I'm German. Whenever you talk about such things, you're dancing on thin ice, if you're German. Some "wise guy" usually mentiones the war crimes of the Nazis, and that's the end to a lot of discussions.

BT, this is going to be highly subjective on my part, you gave me quite a bit to think about this week by writing this, and I was at a loss on what to say. But I think I may be able to scratch the surface by saying that many countries (including my own of course) have committed serious atrocities, and Germany during the 1930s and early 1940s is definitely not alone. The difference here is how each nation handles the legacy. For instance, in the United States any mention of treatment of the Indian Tribes that inhabited North America before we expanded (or we can go farther back too), and the treatment and slavery of Black people is branded as "reverse racism". Makes people not want to talk about it here, and its a form of bullying. For years in the Soviet Union, talking about Stalin's purges could get you shot in the back of the neck. Targan has already mentioned that Japanese know little of their nation's actions during the Second World War, and I think that's a symptom of the subject matter being left out of history texts.

But BT, Germany seems to me to be one of the cases where the people remember what happened and use the lessons to keep it from ever happening again. Most Germans that Ive spoken with tend to acknowledge the past of their nation and admit that it was a huge wrong turn in the road. But Germany today is one of the most respected members of the EU, and has provided assistance and help all over the international community in many different ways. My own personal experience comes from German companies' contributions to hazmat emergency response technology.

So IMHO, the way Germany views and handles the parts of their ugly history today is the standard that the rest of us should be trying to meet.

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

1) You are coming across very much as a troll trying to turn this, so far very civilised, thread into a flame war.

2) I find it strange that the ONLY person going on about anti-americanism is in fact an American. All the non-Americans participating in this thread are doing so ina rational, non-offensive manner.

During the American war of indepence, the Americans lost most of their battles against the British and yet still won the war. This theme is common in many wars in which one nation pursues military aims in another nation far from their home soil against a country in which they do not have support from the natives. Then again if politicians ever studied history before starting a war w'd be living in a blissful state of world peace right now.

First, VERY interesting you bring up us in this context, though these days I think the media has much more to do with how warfare turns out. But the American War isn't what people normally think of or discuss very much when talking about fourth gen warfare. Well played.

And second, I agree about you comments about the so called "anti-american" message. We have a lot of Americans that are on the side of being thin-skinned, thick-headed, and believe they have a monopoly on having been shot at or picking up pieces of friends. Its embarrassing. I was on the verge of losing my temper and wishing I had never read this thread until Webstral sent that last post and calmed me down. So thanks much Web.
But Legbreaker is right about this kind of subject not being off topic, its highly relevant to a military or post-apocalyptic game. I tend to lean towards story more than rules and modifiers, so this kind of situation can be instructive at the least. Its what separates table top roleplaying from computer games and adds complications. Not to mention Im a vet as well and I take a personal interest in what happens over there for several reasons. And hats off to Cdnwolf for having the courage to bring it up.

Originally Posted by simonmark6

I'm British and I love Americans...though I couldn't eat a whole one.

Well maybe if I was really hungry.

You need to find a good butcher that knows how to cut us up Simon. LOL

[Medic]

TicToc, I tip my proverbial hat at you or rather outright salute you for the actual balls it takes to apologize on a public internet forum. I respect such an integrity and wish to return the apology on my behalf for any words of mine that could have been misunderstood.

The original topic of the thread is not a simple issue in any way - it is very complex. As said, very little is known of what actually happened and even though there are some people who most certainly know exactly what took place, most of us are left only to speculate from the little information we can find on various sources. Most of, if not all the information available comes from the press that, as I stated earlier, has the responsibility to provide the owners of their magazines with income by broadcasting news. Boring news don't sell well, which leads to the degrading of the journalistic ethics.

People are entitled to information about what their nation's and its servants' deeds both at home and abroad. However, the good deeds are far seldom reported than the bad, which creates both an inbalance of information and the problem of misinformation that springs from speculation. Of course, that is their right, guaranteed by the right of free speech, most nations respect nowadays. Free speech comes with the unfortunate aspect of people just saying what they think, true or false, right or wrong. Sometimes things are also understood, either by accident or deliberately.

While I'm far from being a moderator here, I wish we all can discuss even these difficult matters without causing any ill feelings between the fine members of this forum, even though I believe there will always be someone who will find some statement distasteful or annoying.

[TicToc]

So perhaps we can use this tragedy to brainstorm. What are some incidence that you can imagine happening in the T2K world and how do you see different parties reacting.

Idea 1:
Western soldiers making a living currently as laborers (guards, hiding, ect ect) in a small eastern European village. What is left of a Russian Infantry Battalion is in cantonment nearby. One day a small groups of liquored up rooskies get the idea to graft some goods from the locals. The the grizzled old Russian sergeant is shaking down the locals two younger troops wander off to look for valuables/women/booze. In their attempt to procure said loot a fight ensues. The two drunk soldiers win. Drunk and angry with the world they begin to move from house to house killing any villager they can find. The Russian sergeant and the rest of his men respond. When they arrive at the scene they forcibly stop the murderous individuals, dragging them off back to the cantonment area before more damage is caused. In their wake however there are 11 dead villages mostly women and children as well a a good number of killed livestock. As the characters and other men run in from working the fields, patrolling, ect ect they see what has happened.

What happens next? Where as a character do you go from there?

[Medic]

Originally Posted by TicToc

So perhaps we can use this tragedy to brainstorm. What are some incidence that you can imagine happening in the T2K world and how do you see different parties reacting.

I believe, this would be a good idea, but I suppose doing it in a new thread would be better - it would get more replies than the off-topic thread, I believe.

[TicToc]

Medic, Good point Ill re-post the question in a new tread.

[Webstral]

TicToc, I salute you for having the intestinal fortitude and integrity to apologize to perfect strangers. Well done.

[Cdnwolf]

(Sticking head up from foxhole)... Is it safe to come out???

[B.T.]

Wow, what a thread!

@ TicToc:
I think, it was a good thing to apologize. Well done!
So, welcome to the board!

@ all Vets:
In a way, I'm a vet myself. I was "only" a conscript and I have no combat experience. But I can understand the bad feelings towards people, who only criticize (and often in an unfair way!) the military, not seeing the good sides. This certainly sucks.
I had a lot of arguments with people, because I defended the military. Especially in the end of the cold war period, a lot of Germans forgot about the necessary of alert forces. The current situation in the U.S. seems to be similar.
But I think, we can assume, that the vast majority of the board-members have a more positive attitude towards the military in general.

@ those, who reacted to my last post:
Thanks, gents, for your encouragement and support. This means a lot to me!

@ CdnWolf:
I'm fine with that.
BTW: Did you ever read Medic's sig?

[pmulcahy11b]

Am I the only one who thinks that the soldier should be turned over to the Afghanis for trial?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Am I the only one who thinks that the soldier should be turned over to the Afghanis for trial?

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

Not totally. There have been a number of cases where US citizen have been tried by a foreign nation. When the possibility of capital punishment is present we tend to get a little more territorial until the State Department weighs in and forces our hand one direction or the other.

[Fusilier]

Over 2,500 Americans end up in foreign prisons every year and very few get an early released (sometimes they split their time between both countries if they are lucky). The rare exception is when capital punishment is involved as Eddie mentioned. I've been to a Thai prison visit and have seen Americans who've been locked up in there for many years (almost ten at the time).

Although these people are subject to the laws and penal system of the host country, and basically forfeit whatever rights they had in the US, it seems to be a rarity for a service member to not be immediately repatriated. It does appear to be a double standard... although I don't know if that is an accurate term for it.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think that would be the right thing to do but US is generally totally opposed to handing over its citizens (and especially soldiers) for trial by other countries, isn't it? And the last few US governments have publicly expressed support for non-US criminals to be tried by the International Criminal Court but have refused to allow US citizens to fall under its jurisdiction.

The U.S. actually asked for the British to hand over the young man, who had kept a link site, from where people could find links to pirated movies. The guy had not provided the movies himself, only the links to those hosted by others and yet he is probably going to be transported to U.S. for trial. If it had been a U.S. citizen and the British had wanted him for the same, it would have become far more complicated as the agreement between the two is unbalanced - for the U.S., only a suspicion is enough while the Brits would need evidence to actually have any chance of getting an U.S. citizen for trial. And no, this is not a rant about U.S. citizens. Just an example of double standards that are going to get more and more common, especially with the SOPA/PIPA.

[simonmark6]

As a Brit, I blame our side for the inequality rather than the Americans. We signed up to it and we knew that once a law was in place to would be used in a way other than in the spirit. UK Councils have used anti-terrorist legislation to put surveillence on people who dump rubbish, we couldn't expect anyone else not to do the same.

[95th Rifleman]

The US has always been very wary of war crimes issues. They are reluctant to allow their servicemen to stand trial in any other forum than an American court.

Part of it is a reputation thing as the US government has always been keen to be seen as the "good guys", having a soldier in the Hague on trial for warcrimes is not a good image. Better to have that same soldier on the lesser charge of murder in an American court.

This is not being anti-American, it's just a fact.

[Medic]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The US has always been very wary of war crimes issues. They are reluctant to allow their servicemen to stand trial in any other forum than an American court.

Part of it is a reputation thing as the US government has always been keen to be seen as the "good guys", having a soldier in the Hague on trial for warcrimes is not a good image. Better to have that same soldier on the lesser charge of murder in an American court.

This is not being anti-American, it's just a fact.

Yes, having a soldier stand trial at Hague for warcrimes is not good for the national image, but I wonder if they realize, it's not pretty good for the image either not to hand the guy over to Hague, when the case is pretty clear?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Medic

Yes, having a soldier stand trial at Hague for warcrimes is not good for the national image, but I wonder if they realize, it's not pretty good for the image either not to hand the guy over to Hague, when the case is pretty clear?

There are allot of factors in this, many of them poltical. The president that allows a US soldier to stand before the Hague tribunal is the president that loses his next election. The "good guy" idea has been ingrained in the American national consciousness since WW2 and was reinforced during the cold war when America was considered the bastion of the free world defending good against the evils of communism.

This is the heart of the reason why many Americans react so extremely to percieved "anti-Americanism", the concept that America may not be the good guys goes against everything the average American has been taught from a very early age.

In Europe we long ago lost any pretence that we are somehow better than everyone else. During the colonial era we Europeans had a similar self-rightous, self image. We where the civilised world freeing priitive peoples from the shackles of their barbaric cultures and religions, we belived that we where genuinely doing these people a favour by taking over their country.

The horrors of two world wars and the realisation that we can be so easily sink to the worst depths of human nature rather destroyed this self-image and gave rise to the fall of colonialism in the decades following WW2.

So we have this situation where a minority of American soldiers prove that yes, they are actualy human and suffer from the same human failings everyone else is prone to. Non-Americans, some who feel umbrage at the high moral and ethical horse America has rode since the end of WW2 point to these events, often going over the top to make their example using offensive and patronising language. In response Americans react in a sometimes extreme fashion to defend what they see as their rightful position as the god guys, feeling that the rest of the world owes them a debt of gratitude. Any fellow Brit who has had to sit through an arrogant, often ignorant, lecture from an American about how "they saved our arse in two world wars" can sympathise with this point.

It's a cultural issue one that stems from the cold war and will take many, many years to resolve itself.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Medic

Yes, having a soldier stand trial at Hague for warcrimes is not good for the national image, but I wonder if they realize, it's not pretty good for the image either not to hand the guy over to Hague, when the case is pretty clear?

It's more a case of preventing the precedent from being established than being worried about our national image. Contrary to the statement that we see ourselves as the good guys, those of us who are not lemmings know that Bad Things happen in war and much of it goes unreported. We also know that there are many nations that are just itching to take out the last 70+ years of US foreign policy on the first one of us they can slice off of the herd. So it's more of a preventive measure to keep the flood gates in place.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Any fellow Brit who has had to sit through an arrogant, often ignorant, lecture from an American about how "they saved our arse in two world wars" can sympathise with this point.

Ah, then I'm sure you can appreciate how sick I and other Australians are of being told "you'd be speaking Japanese if we hadn't come and saved you". As I recall I've even had to put up with that patronising crap on this very forum, a few years ago.

[Webstral]

Given that it’s an election year, I would put the odds that an American soldier would be sent to the Hague for a war crimes trial somewhere south of zero. I’m not defending the practice. I’m being realistic about outcomes.

As for whether “we” (I wasn’t involved) saved the UK, Australia, France, or anyone else during WW1 or WW2, it would be interesting to see what would have happened in an alternate reality in which the Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor or in which Hitler did not take leave of his senses and declare war on the US. Would the UK and the USSR have been able to defeat Nazi Germany without American aid? This is open question, not a question meant to imply that the answer is no. Nor is the question meant to imply that y’all ought to sit and listen to speeches about how we saved you, because most Americans alive today had nothing to do with it, regardless of the relative importance of American involvement.

I’m less concerned with the self-righteousness than the willingness to act under that assumption. The self-righteous who sit on their hands are annoying but innocuous. The self-righteous who have the power and motivation to act are a problem. The combination of self-righteousness, perceived national interest, and perceived might is a very dangerous combination.

The latest horror perpetrated by Americans in uniform will inspire a new round of CYA from brigade downward; but the problem isn’t a brigade or division or even corps problem. Iraq and Afghanistan reflect poor strategy. Our poor strategy is an outgrowth of our hubris, the parochialism of much of our leadership, and frankly our failure to develop good human intelligence or pay much heed to the HUMINT we have. I remain convinced that the plan for victory in Afghanistan should have come out of the Special Forces community and that had our leadership been willing to pay the monetary and political price for a sufficient effort for victory we would be much further along. We weren’t willing to take steps that matched the realities on the ground in Afghanistan, though; and we weren’t willing to make any genuine commitments or sacrifices as a nation or in terms of political costs to get the job done as it needed to be done. So here we are more than a decade later still trying to wedge our square peg into a round hole.