From: ldewey <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:52:35 AM America/New_York
To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Iraq donation
I did not annotate my previous post in the interest of brevity. I will
now provide some citations.
The statistics regarding people killed in the invasions and occupation
of Iraq - again 8800 to 10500, mainly civilians - have been compiled
with significant rigor, as fully described at the URL I provided
<http://www.iraqbodycount.net/>. It is reasonable to conclude that
those statistics are valid. If one decides to ignore those statistics
because they do not fit one's world view, that's a different matter.
As for the conduct of the occupying army, the world press has carried
many reports of that conduct, and of the atrocities or collateral
damage that have resulted. Here are some:
------------
"By Frank Walker March 14, 2004, Sun-Herald (Sydney)
Australia's F/A-18 pilots defied the orders of American commanders and
refused to drop their bombs on up to 40 missions during the invasion of
Iraq, it can now be revealed.
In a remarkable account of how our airmen applied Australian rules of
engagement, an RAAF pilot has told The Sun-Herald each of the 14 RAAF
Hornet pilots aborted three to four bombing runs because intelligence
given at pre-flight briefings did not concur with what they found at
the target.
Last night, The Sun-Herald could not confirm whether or not American
field commanders raised objections about the Australian pilots'
actions, nor if US pilots later carried out the bombing runs themselves.
But Australia's Defence Force chief, General Peter Cosgrove backed the
pilots' action, and said there were no recriminations.
Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney last week described how he and other
Australian F/A-18 pilots were forced to weigh up the risk of civilian
casualties in a split second before dropping their bombs.
He said pilots broke off many missions after they saw the target and
decided there was not a valid military reason to drop their bombs."
------------
------------
"Owen Gibson, Thursday June 05 2003, The Guardian (London)
BBC news reporter John Simpson has hit out against the "trigger-happy"
behaviour of US troops in Iraq and claimed he saved an old Iraqi man
from being shot by gung-ho marines.
The veteran reporter, who spent time with American forces in Tikrit,
praised British troops for their conduct during the war but said in an
interview with Soldier magazine that the Americans "lost control".
"They lost all control - screaming, shouting and kicking people,"
Simpson said, adding that US soldiers' fear of snipers led to a 'shoot
first, ask questions later' attitude.
"One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it
at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a
blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the
witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped,"
said the BBC reporter...."
------------
In regard to my assertion regarding GI resistance, just last week Dan
Rather interviewed a Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, who went AWOL while on
leave from Iraq and has since turned himself in to further protest the
war. In that report, on 60 Minutes II, Rather reported:
------------
"In his only on-camera interview while still in hiding, Mejia told 60
Minutes II that he went AWOL because he is morally opposed to a war
that has killed or wounded nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers.
"I have only been loyal to my principles and I think that gives me the
right to decide not to be a part of something that I consider
criminal." - Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia.
------------
Mejia's story has also been reported in the Miami Herald and NY Times:
------------
"He recalled several ambushes in which other soldiers were wounded, the
"bad guys" got away and
"innocent Iraqis" were killed in crossfires.
“When I saw with my own eyes what war can do to people, a real change
began to take place within
me. I have witnessed the suffering of a people whose country is in
ruins and who are further
humiliated by the raids, patrols, and curfews of an occupying army. My
experience of this war
has changed me forever,” Mejia was quoted as saying in the news release.
"At the time, you are doing your job and you go with the flow," Mejia
said. "But you see people
dying every day. I can't tell you there was one day I woke up and said
I am against the war."
------------
In regard to others, consider this story, reported March 16 by the AP,
------------
"TIKRIT, Iraq - Two U.S. Army medics in Iraq have applied for
conscientious objector status and want to be honorably discharged from
the military because the idea of killing is "revolting" to them, their
company commander said Tuesday.
The two soldiers, both privates first class, notified the Army of their
request on Feb. 9, the day before their Germany-based 1st Battalion,
18th Infantry Regiment deployed to Iraq, Capt. Todd Grissom said.
Grissom would not identify the two soldiers, saying only that they come
from California and Illinois....
"As commanders, you don't hope for such things because if everyone in
the Army was like that we would have no one to defend us," Grissom said.
------------
Or this, also March 16, from the Army Times:
------------
"Parents of troops who have been or are deployed to Iraq, military
veterans, and family members of those killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks were among more than 100 war protestors who marched six miles
from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to the White House Monday.
It was the second leg of a two-day “Trail of Mourning and Truth”
journey that began at Dover Air Force Base, Del.
“My son is over in Iraq, and he shouldn’t be there,” said Alycia Barr
of Pine Grove, Pa. “Military families should have the courage to speak
out.”
Barr, who carried a sign that read: “Antiwar protestors are the
guardian angels of peace,” declined to name her son for fear of causing
him problems."
------------
I understand that groups of relatives of active duty troops now
regularly protest at Fort Bragg.
In regard to the 'rules of warfare,' I simply note international law,
and specifically those concerning war crimes, ratified by the UN
General Assembly in 1950, aka the Nuremberg Principles.
------------
"Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which
constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person
who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime
under international law acted as Head of State or responsible
Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under
international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of
a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international
law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or
a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under
international law. "
------------
And the same document lists some of the crimes punishable under
international law, including
------------
"War Crimes
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for
any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory,
murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas,
killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton
destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified
by military necessity."
------------
War does not save lives. As Clausewitz noted (1832), war is the
continuation of politics by other means.
Of course, one may - and the US government clearly does - argue that
the 10,000 dead Iraqi people are dead because they were 'enemy
combatants' or 'terrorists' or 'unavoidable' or some other excuse. But
clearly, world public opinion trends to another set of conclusions.
To one last point raised below, it has been pretty well established
that the Hussein government had nothing to do with September 11, and
that the WMD story was complete fiction. As Richard Clarke and Sir
Christopher Meyer have stipulated, the US government knew that there
was no connection but it wanted to invade Iraq for other reasons.
Certainly despotic, the former Iraq government posed no military threat
to the US or to other states in the region, having been well-devastated
by the prior Gulf war and ten years of continual bombardment (by the
US) and economic sanctions.
-LD
On Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Automatic digest processor
wrote:
> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:39:30 -0600
> From: John Martinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Iraq donation
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C41AF1.E55B4160
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> LD,
>
> I am also against the war in Iraq, but come now LD, you are making an =
> assumption and fallacy that "most of the people who have been killed
> in =
> Iraq are non-combatant Iraqi people..." and "the overwhelming majority
> =
> of those people have been killed by the US military and it's
> government. =
> That is a simple fact." =20
> =20
> Could you please post or email me privately the evidence "or simple =
> fact[s]" you have to verify your assumption. Odd, during the war I've
> =
> seen Iraqi people (Saddam Hussein supporters, etc.) firing at the =
> American soldiers, and the soldiers firing back and killing them.
> That =
> is the process of war and what happens. However, more recently, I've =
> seen the same politically minded people[s] loading themselves with
> high =
> explosives and blowing themselves up or running check points to blow
> up =
> both American GI's and innocent Iraqi people. Surely, the Iraqi
> people =
> have been killing their own people. =20
>
> It may be true that a few American GIs "have refused to go along," =
> however, I seriously doubt you can support there "probably (are) many =
> who we will not hear about." IMHO, that remains only speculation and =
> opinion on your part. Even though American GI's may not want to be
> over =
> there, I've read and seen the reports. Plus, as an ex-GI myself, I
> know =
> for a fact that most troops are there to do their job, be it fighting
> to =
> preserve freedom for America, to bring freedom to the Iraqi people,
> etc. =
> =20
>
> Yes, my opinion of the war has changed (because of great postings by =
> Nicholas, James and others) of why we entered Iraq looking for
> supposed =
> WMD that just have not been found nor I doubt will ever be. =20
>
> IMHO, American troops are there simply to do their job. However, the =
> real answers of why we are there vary from political to economical =
> reasons. For the economical, my opinion rest to protect the oil
> fields =
> of the rich oil companies and holdings of corporations in the Middle =
> East. Historically, too, we see that both the USA, France, Russia and
> =
> other countries have fed military weapons into the Middle East for =
> years. You might say, it was about to blow and it did.
>
> Indeed, I think that the American people and their allies have been =
> duped by Bush and others (CIA, etc.) into thinking that there were WMD
> =
> to get US troops into Iraq. With this in mind, the problem of deaths =
> because of an invasion is not to be blamed by the soldiers (of any =
> nation or war) but by the politicians and those who put the troops
> into =
> the field of battle in the first place for their own personal or =
> financial gain (and the gas prices at the pumps may have a touch to do
> =
> with it). =20
>
> I am sorry, but I also disagree with your thought that the deaths of
> the =
> Iraqi people have been totally the cause of US soldiers, especially
> with =
> all the car bombs, suicide bombers, etc., blowing up themselves and =
> their own people. As the war continues, I see more and more of these
> =
> types of deaths happening, and caused by these types of people --- not
> =
> by American soldiers. This is a different type of war because of =
> terrorism, where the enemy is unknown. It is almost an invisible war =
> because of the situation. Sadly, the innocent are going to be killed =
> more and more, and not just by soldiers but by terrorists.
>
> We are in a different kind of war, and I think museum exhibits, to be =
> honest, need to deal with this factor. I see a great change in =
> exhibit presentation of this type because of this new type of =
> "terrorist" war. Yes, war is "hell" and 'war booty' that does make it
> =
> to the exhibits, may be pictures of the innocent lives lost by a =
> terrorist blowing up a crowded street in the Middle East. However, to
> =
> be fair curators and exhibit teams would also have to deal with the =
> reasons why the war began. The story would not be factual, if the =
> exhibit did not explain the thousands of lives lost because of the =
> injustice and rule of Saddam Hussein over the Iraqi people. I think =
> this opens up many thought-provoking exhibits in the future.=20
>
> In addition, I must comment on your view that "aerial bombardments of =
> urban residential areas, water supplies, and power plants (all =
> proscribed as 'war crimes' by the Geneva Convention, btw), the cluster
> =
> bombs and maimed children." However, this is what war is all about,
> and =
> the innocent becomes the statistics. War is about death, however, in
> =
> most cases in Iraq the bombardments were very well orchestrated, which
> =
> saved many lives. It is well documented that residential areas, water
> =
> supplies and power plants were not the target in Iraq, but places
> where =
> Saddam Hussein and/or his supporters were possible located. =20
>
> Many have or never will forget what happened on 9/11, which IMHO was a
> =
> prime factor in pushing the US into the mentality to invade Iraq.
> Thus, =
> patriotism and a nation getting behind its government (even thought
> the =
> reasons of the WMD was a main factor in why we went into Iraq) should =
> also be part of an exhibit. I am sure government reports, media =
> coverage of the war in Iraq and other types of new artifacts will be =
> added to exhibits (or libraries) to tell the story of the war in Iraq.
> =
> =20
>
> I also agree with the postings that the military has handled the issue
> =
> of "war booty" that deals with stolen heritage and artifacts of the =
> ancient culture. Such artifacts should not be allowed, and criminal =
> charges possibly filed if a person or donor presents such items to =
> museums (that's another issue! What does a museum do if they are =
> presented with stolen artifacts?). As with this subject of "Iraq =
> donations", I think differences of opinions on Museum-list spark the =
> creative mind, and in that sense, will provide museums new ideas to =
> build exhibits that will tell of a war that was not wanted, but =
> happened.=20
> =20
> John (14+ years military).
> http://geocities.com/jpmart1<http://geocities.com/jpmart1>
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
