US army murders Reuters journalists and civilians

[DizoakiusMaximus]

But I guess it's too much for you to admit that sometimes, the U.S. Does things just because they're the right thing to do.

Not at all, we did the right thing in WWII. We did the right thing in Korea, as South Korea was our ally and we defended her from aggression (we only got into trouble there when we went too far and attempted regieme change and MacArthur got his butt kicked by the Chinese) Since then, we've tried to do the right thing in Somalia and Bosnia just to name two different places. (as did most of the UN)

Things didn't go so well in either place, but at least we tried. But if you are comparing Iraq to those two different campaigns, you're totally confusing the issue. Those places were very unstable, and reports of ethnic cleansing were coming in daily at the time we went in and while we were there. In Iraq the ethnic cleansing had happened after we told the Kurds to rise up and fight Saddam and then left them holding the bag when the Republican Guard rolled in and killed them all. Way to go USA, way to look out for the oppressed. The best part is: the Iraqi's used chemical weapons the US sold them to gas all those Kurds. Good work, USA.

South Korea may have been a "blip" for all that time, but they apparently had stuff we wanted from them as far back as 1866 when we tried to force our way in with warships and make Korea open up for trade just like we did with Japan. They may be a competitor when it comes to certain products, but they're huge customer of ours when it comes to other products (that's the nature of captitalism; nobody has EVERYTHING they need in their own backyard, they have to get it from someplace and that someplace will charge you for it)

[alguien]

Interestingly enough, the editor and chief of Reuters just spiked this story in which two of his own press corp were killed.

David Schlesinger, the editor in chief of Reuters, declined to run a story by one of his own reporters containing claims that the 2007 killings of two Reuters staffers in Baghdad by U.S. troops may have been war crimes...

Reuters' response to the disclosure of the video has been relatively muted. Schlesinger issued a statement on Tuesday calling the video "disturbing" but declining to assign blame or accuse the U.S. military of improper behavior:

In this particular case, want to meet with the Pentagon to press the need to learn lessons from this tragedy.

These stories are not easy for us to report or to be involved in. They test our commitment to viewing events and actions objectively.

What matters in the end is not how we as colleagues and friends feel; what matters is the wider public debate that our stories and this video provoke.

[awesome possum]

I wonder if anyone here wants to defend the actions listed in this article, a little down the ways. It mostly deals with the actions that have been debated but has this disgusting piece of information:

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has finally admitted that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women and a girl in a February, 2010, raid, in which two Afghan government officials were also killed. Brilliant reporting by Jerome Starkey of The Times of London has blown apart the U.S. military’s cover-up story that the women were killed by knife wounds administered several hours before the raid.

It now appears that the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special Forces troops retrieving their bullets from the dead or dying women's bodies. Starkey’s story last Sunday in The Times reported that “Afghan investigators also determined that American forces not only killed the women but had also ‘dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath” and then “washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.”

[DizoakiusMaximus]

I wonder if anyone here wants to defend the actions listed in this article, a little down the ways. It mostly deals with the actions that have been debated but has this disgusting piece of information:

Wow...just...wow.

I especially like the condemnation coming from retired US military personnel. I'd like to see the DoD really try to defend the actions of the helicopter pilots when people start asking about what the ROE says about shooting into crowds of mostly unarmed people.

[TerraPrime]

If the theme is that the only thing the U.S. Cares about is exploiting other nations and oil, why South Korea.

I'm not sure that South Korea is a good example of the U.S. "doing the right thing." There are significant advantages to the U.S. to have a country that they can station troops at in that region. At least, prior to the opening of the Soviet Block, having a substantial military presence there was not insignificant. That the U.S. troops also provide some security to South Koreans is laudable, but hardly a result of altruism. Mutually beneficial, one might say.

But I guess it's too much for you to admit that sometimes, the U.S. Does things just because they're the right thing to do.

Sometimes? Yes. Not all the time. Like in most empires, the armed forces of the U.S. serve in the interest of the empire, be it security or trade enhancement. Once in a while, we also do humanitarian duties. Sometimes, the two coincide.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not sure that South Korea is a good example of the U.S. "doing the right thing." There are significant advantages to the U.S. to have a country that they can station troops at in that region. At least, prior to the opening of the Soviet Block, having a substantial military presence there was not insignificant. That the U.S. troops also provide some security to South Koreans is laudable, but hardly a result of altruism. Mutually beneficial, one might say.

Protecting Japan is a big part of it too. I think. I'd agree its not purely altruisitc, but the goal of preserving peace and freedom in that part of the world certainly doesn't fit the paradigm of exploitation some claim mpotivates all U.S. Actions.

Sometimes? Yes. Not all the time. Like in most empires, the armed forces of the U.S. serve in the interest of the empire, be it security or trade enhancement. Once in a while, we also do humanitarian duties. Sometimes, the two coincide.

I think that's correct too. In modern times, I tend to think Colin Powell's comment is closest to the truth. But good intentions do not always lead to good results.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

Protecting Japan is a big part of it too. I think. I'd agree its not purely altruisitc, but the goal of preserving peace and freedom in that part of the world certainly doesn't fit the paradigm of exploitation some claim mpotivates all U.S. Actions.

Well, we sure didn't do Japan any favors by hamstringing them with a constitution that won't allow them to effectively defend themselves without our help. We trust the Germans not to get out of hand with their military, but the Japanese still have to have a clause in their constitution that won't allow them to form an army?

Now that I think about it, it really does make sense that we'd force that into their constitution; without an effective military, they'd need our help to defend themselves and in order for us to do that, we need military bases in their territory. Slick move Dugout Doug.

[Shryke]

The whole Japanese "Defensive-only Military" is a joke anyway.

It's on the level of "No, Israel doesn't have nukes".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, we sure didn't do Japan any favors by hamstringing them with a constitution that won't allow them to effectively defend themselves without our help. We trust the Germans not to get out of hand with their military, but the Japanese still have to have a clause in their constitution that won't allow them to form an army?

Now that I think about it, it really does make sense that we'd force that into their constitution; without an effective military, they'd need our help to defend themselves and in order for us to do that, we need military bases in their territory. Slick move Dugout Doug.

Weak. Japan is free to change their Constitution.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

Weak. Japan is free to change their Constitution.

Why would they bother when they have the biggest military in the world ready to go to bat for them?

[Lord of Rhinos]

Frankly, I'm not sure why we both staying in Japan and South Korea anymore. South Korea is far richer and has twice the population of North Korea. If a war happens North Korea will get its ass kicked. Japan isn't allowed to have an military but that just means they relabeled it the self defense force, last time I looked budget wise Japan spends the 4th most on its military.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why would they bother when they have the biggest military in the world ready to go to bat for them?

Exactly -- they stay comparatively disarmed due to choice, not a U.S. Mandate as you implied. In fact, the U.S. Has been pushing Japan to strengthen its military for a long time.

[DizoakiusMaximus]

Frankly, I'm not sure why we both staying in Japan and South Korea anymore. South Korea is far richer and has twice the population of North Korea. If a war happens North Korea will get its ass kicked. Japan isn't allowed to have an military but that just means they relabeled it the self defense force, last time I looked budget wise Japan spends the 4th most on its military.

With just a quick check, it looks like the JDF has the 24th largest military in terms of personnel and a budget of 48.8 billion dollars. (apparently Japan is ranked 7th worldwide) So these guys have a lot of expensive equipment, but a relatively small standing force. Another interesting fact is that apparently members of the JDF are considered "civil servants" and there is also no military justice, all trials are held in civilian courts.

I agree that I don't understand why we're still in Japan and South Korea either, apart from wanting bases in the region. Of course, we're still in Germany and we're still in England too, so there are other places we should be getting out of first in my opinion. The US has over 800 installations across the world, in 135 countries.

Imagine how much money the US could save if we just withdrew the forces from the places where we *honestly* have no worries about stability. We could do something really crazy like pay for universal health care.

EDIT: WRT South Korea vs North Korea. I agree that the SK's could probably (at this point) defend themselves adequately against an NK invasion if it came down to it. However, if you look at army size (I know size isn't everything) they are very similar, in fact the NK's have the 4th largest military in the world with something like 5 million men either in active duty or in the national reserve. The SK's would likely win because of their superior technology, but it would be obscenely bloody on both sides.

[Cuellar]

Imagine how much money the US could save if we just withdrew the forces from the places where we *honestly* have no worries about stability. We could do something really crazy like pay for universal health care.

You've got to be shitting me. Defense spending easily has the strongest political backing of any porky/corrupt industry in the country. If we cut our military size in half (and devoted some more to R&D instead), we'd still be easily the strongest military on the planet. Case and point are the shitty little towns in the middle of nowhere that are up in arms that the nuclear treaty will shut down their waste of space defence bases and wipe them out. Why should we spend billions maintaining nuclear weapons from the 60's just so that bumfuck Wyoming can stay on welfare?

[DizoakiusMaximus]

You've got to be shitting me. Defense spending easily has the strongest political backing of any porky/corrupt industry in the country. If we cut our military size in half (and devoted some more to R&D instead), we'd still be easily the strongest military on the planet. Case and point are the shitty little towns in the middle of nowhere that are up in arms that the nuclear treaty will shut down their waste of space defence bases and wipe them out. Why should we spend billions maintaining nuclear weapons from the 60's just so that bumfuck Wyoming can stay on welfare?

Yes. Shit, even from a different point of view, if we get out of all the other damn countries that we're currently maintaining troops in those rinky-dink little towns you speak of can host a shit-ton of US soldiers, get their economy booming and the soldiers now get to stay in their own country and actually get to see their families. It's win-win.