John H wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 22:26:51 -0500, Jim wrote:

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal concluded: "To initiate a war of
aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Nuremberg also taught us that "just following orders" is not an excuse
for what the winning side declares to be war crimes. So while the
Germans couldn't get off the hook, neither can the Iraqis, who have been
told from the beginning of the invasion that if they DID follow their
leaders' orders, they would be tried for war crimes. And yet, the
sensitive American soldier who is told to drop bombs on undefended Iraqi
villages -- well, he must do what he is told to do and there's no wiggle
room. He is ruled by people with divine rights; the power that comes
from holding one hand on a bible and keeping the other outstretched to
the oil oligarchy.

What is the wing opening in the sky? What is darkening the clouds? When
does it descend in all its ominous power?
"The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate
intensity." (Yeats)

Can you provide an instance where an American soldier was told that he
was to drop bombs on an undefended village and then proceeded to do
so?

I thought not. Now, what is the rest of your post worth?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


We've dropped plenty of bombs on plenty of villages in Iraq, and, by the
standards of modern warfare, these villages were either undefended
entirely, or were "defended" by a small rabble of irregulars whose
actions were small-scale and had nothing to do with the village, but,
rather, with saving their own skins. There are counts kept of the
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we have killed. The numbers are in the
thousands.

You think playing your "literalist" games gives you an argument? It only
makes you the bigger fool.

Is this what they taught you in the military? Amorality?