You mirror, are talking science fiction/fantasy not real life.

and a line that was left out of that sworn statement is "I (say your name) will defend my country against all enemeies foriegn and domestic..."

yes they are required to do just that. It is called marshal law. And believe it or not, the states governor(s) and mayor(s) can initiate martial law in times of crisis.

During Martial law, the citizens of the united states falling under martial law, fall under military law, and not local.

AMEN!!!!!!!!

I am not going to read through all the babble on here, but there is no doubt this is a terribly liberal one sided view. I have one, and only one problem with the Was in Iraq, and that is the fact that they will not allow the soldiers to win. The pussificaton of this country is so complete that we have imbedded reporters with combat troops, and troops afraid to fire in a danger situation for fear of a court martial, and public scrutiny. You want to end the war?
1) Find an insurgent in a home? Drag all from the home out in the street and execute them from the smallest to the large.
2)Someone detonates a bomb on themself locate their family and drag the whole bloodline out into the street and execute them.
3)Taking fire from a Mosque? Bomb it into sand
4)Kick every reporter except for military ones out of the country
5)Close all borders. Any activity within 1 mile of the border will now result in automatic classification as enemy, and will take fire.


War is hell, and it takes lives. Whose lives it takes depends on what you are willing to do to end it. You cannot institute law until you first have order. Nobody has the stomach to do what it takes to bring that order

And not all orders are received in combat! A peace time order which places a soldier and/or his team at unnecessary risk for the circumstances can be considered an illegal order.
ie: During Ice storm remaining outside without a shelter to watch for looters etc.
: Transport of unsecured dangerous cargo.

this is more accurate than most would like to admit

That is true, and I apologize for thinking inside the box (i.e. wartime)

It is definitely one way to finish the war, yes; but if we were to actually do this, coiuld we look at ourselves in the mirror each morning afterwords and feel honorable and proud?



plain and simple you wwould be guilty of murder. You can not justify killing those around, unless you have absolute definitive proof they knew the insurgent was an enemy and was sheltering them willingly. What if the insurgent was threatening to do exactly what yuo suggested, take them all out in the street and execute smallest to largest if they did nto provide shelter, etc.? You just did what he threatened to do.




your brother is found to be guilty of rape and murder. So we should frag your entire family outside and execute all of you, because of one bad apple? (no there is NOT a differrance)




These two statements I agree one hundred percent with. A mosque may be a religious building and thus "untouchable" just like a hospital, but if it is being used as cover in order to fire upon troops, then it is no longer a place of religion. Same thing goes for a hospital, and geneva conventions specifically state this in accordance with a hospital too.




I agree with closing all borders and having a "neutral zone" and having automatic death for being inside that "neutral zone" without the proper authorization. However, one mile seems a bit too small an area.

as you had stated, if we want to win a war, we need to be willing to step up and finish it, not ***** foot aorund the whole thing.
And civilian reporters have absolutely no business being over in a combat zone (wether it is war or not). This distracts our soldeirs from doing their business, as they now have to keep an extra eye on the civvie who can not protect themselves properly.

If the government wants to allow cameras to be attached to vehicles and helmets of those willing to carry them, that's fine. Have an automatic upfeed via satelite. The companies communications officers are mroe than capable of setting this up for news stations. But keep the non-combatants out of htere.

I can guarantee you that you did not spend one minute in a military uniform in a combat zone. I do not care for a civilans pov in regards to a combat zone. You use all these analogies, but you are forgetting some simple truthes, let me break this down;

We fire bombed a civilian city during ww2 that was made of paper (Tokyo)
We Carpet bombed civilian cities in germany during ww2
We dropped 2 atomic bombs on japanese civilian populations during ww2

The ends justify the means. War is murder, unless you are on the winning side (see nazi war crime trials). There is no moral high ground in an armed conflict, it is brutal, dirty, and heinous, regardless if you limit "collateral damage". The life you "murder" to institute control are far less than what has occured in the streets of iraq week by week now. You cannot compare war to anything else you have ever dealt with in your life, there is no other situation in which you can compare to make "rules" Quick, brutal, shocking, fear inspiring, that is how you win a battle, and control the populace. The terminology people are now using to describe the war"illegal", "unjust", etc. Has their ever been a war that you could apply legal, and just to?

Single_rob I am going to say this once. And only once. Before you open your mouth and embarass yourself again, close it if you have no idea what you are talking about. I served six years active Army and yes I went to hostile areas. I do not sit here and spout on about it, cause I see no need to do so. But before you make a statement about someone other than yourself, you need to step back and think to yourself, "do I know what I am talking about?"

well then you have my appreciation for your service, and apologize for my wrong assumption, you know what they say about them anyway. Which "hostile war zone"? So I ask you to look past my ignorance, and offer a rebuttle to the rest of the content.

The end does not always justify the means. If becoming the very same tye of person I am trying to stop is what is needed to stop them, then I will nt do it, and do not applaud anyone else who does, because all that happens is you replace one terrorist (as an example) with another.

Now, if you can show proof that the people in that hut knew they were harboring someone, and were doing so ot of sympathy or allegiance, then hell yes I agree with taking them all out.

If you have to take out an entire bldg or city to wipe out the enemy, then yes I agree (to a point). You will still need to show that the action being taken is neccesarry in order to win the war so to speak.for example, if you can garuntee that by having nuked saddams 3rd palace with no concern for the people within say 1 mile of the palace, that you would have wiped out 90 percent of his chain of command, then yes nuking his palace would be a viable option. I know you are going to say there are no garuntees in war, and I agree. But you can show evidence to suggest strongly or weakly that this would be the case, as I am sure you can agree.

however, simply removing an entire family and killing every last one of them, because the fifth son born is a terroristic pig, then no you are not justified.

The ends justify the means. That being said it was probably also said in German at Nurenburg (you brought up the war crimes tribunals).
"Quick, brutal, shocking, fear inspiring, that is how you win a battle, and control the populace." The term you seek is 'Blitzkrieg'. Controlling the populace through these methods serves only to create more enemies within the populace. ie: WW2 (since you like referring to that time frame) the Maquis in France and the various undergrounds in occupied countries.
By your thinking occurrences like 'My Lai' are acceptable. Shooting at anything that moves and killing Allies (Canadian and British dead in Afghanistan) because your personel are high on speed to 'stay alert' is acceptable. The abandoning of those you have promised to aid (Hmuong in Viet Nam) is acceptable.
Want to remind me please that you are / were a member of an allied force. I may mistake you for the enemy.

"Has their ever been a war that you could apply legal, and just to?"

Based on the Constitution and the paleoconservative stance of The Just War theory, WWII was legal and just, because we were attacked on our soil, without warning and responded by issuing a formal declaration of war and then going out and getting the job done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Do I agree with the firebombing or nuking of the civilian population? No. However, the Japanese, during their sneak attack at Pearl, had no regard for whom they were killing, they only had one goal, which was to cripple our Naval capabilities in the region. This means that they set the rules of engagement and placed their citizenry right in the center of the bullseye.

The problem is, with the way we treat those in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Iran at this point, to a lesser degree, we are setting the rules of engagement which means that everyone they can get their hands on are fair game to do these things to us too. Not that it wasn't that way to begin with, but in order to set the example for a just and honorable society, we have to make the conscious choice to leave these tactics to those who have no moral core, that allows us to show the difference between liberty and freedom vs. Tyranny and evil... oh, my fault, we've been coopted by the Republicrat Globalists, we're barely holding on to freedom at this point ourselves.

Had we simply sent in an overwhelming ground force in both Iraq, this would be over already, but we went with a lesser footprint strategy and have stretched our military to its breaking point, which is why I advocate the draft or just come home, the first 3 months will allow us to put a extremely heavy boots on the ground strategy in place, that overwhelming presence will present the Iraqi government with absolutely no excuses to get the job done and by the time the next 3-6 months are over, they had better poo or get off the pot, because by that point the American public will be ready to drag Congress, the Senate and the Administration out into the street for a new suit fitting of tar and feathers.

Of course the Nazi's should not have ben prosecuted for war crimes, except for maybe the very top brass. Everyone under was following writen german law. While this may seem to contradict common sense, our very own federal court system has dismissed the "higher power" calling, so it should not have been allowed in their trials.

Friendly fire incidents are infact always figured into an estimated loss projection as it will always happen.

we abandoned the kurds exactly the same way after iraq left Kuwait. I never justified the abandnment of allies, did I?

Most Military equipment has irr's to make distinction betwen friend and foe, but accidents do still happen. You think it is easy for a person who pulls a trigger on a allie? I do believe that to expect this not to happen is unreasonable in the fog of war. You may as well make the same claim about hitting a pedestrian with your car, or another car with yours. Accidents happen with anything, but structure, and plannin minimize it. Nobody is trying to make war a trivial thing here. I dispise it, I think it is a gross waste of human life and talent, BUT if you are going to send young men and women into harms way you should damn well give them the tools they need to do the job you sent them to do.

The resistance in ww2 worked for two reasons;

1)The majority of the people involved had a sense of self worth, purpose, and to a degree freedom. this by and large does not exist in the middle east with the exception of some purpose (religion) which is starting to wear thin.

2)They were well supplied in both intelligence, and supplies through organized drops from a unified group of countries.The borders were pretty effectively sealed by the germans, it was through air power (which would not occur in Iraq) that the organization received the majority of its breath. When they werent supplied in this manner it resulted in slaugher (i.e. warsaw ghetto).

Ah but even it was not without it's protest, and shady dealings to get us there. It could be said that the United States attacked German U Boats in the atlantic prior to the start of ww2 (proven), they also supplied the British, and Chinese with arms, ammo, planes, tanks, and 500 destroyers to fight the germans through lend lease. Some say that FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor so that he could get involved in the war that he wanted involvement in so bad because of the anti war sentiment in the us. Also the United States declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Germany did not bomb Pearl Harbor iirc