Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
what illegal orders are you refering to? If I am ordered to capture someone suspected of war-crimes or whatever, It is NOT up to ME to decide if they are innocent civilians, or criminals. It is my job to capture them, and deliver them to my superiors. It is My SUPERIORS job to decide what is done at that point, not mine. How does THAT make me a criminal??? I am doing my job, as ordered. I Guarantee that if I were to tell them that I wasn't going to go into that town and capture that person, that I would be quickly replaced by someone who would, and THEN I would be summarily courts-martialed.
|
While the obvious thing to look at here is that in the past the 'I was ordered to' doesn't wash at a war crimes trial, war crimes trials are only for the losing side.
I'm sure in a reality where Japan came back and won WWII, Truman would have been on trial for war crimes for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But Deltona thats not really the issue here. You are dealing with people from the political spectrum which think, by default, the US is no better than the Nazi's. The Bushitler people therefore are very quick to call anything a war crime. Civilians die in war, accidental or not, but thats a war crime. Unsubstantiated claims of brutality? Thats a war crime. 9/11 happened? Its a war crime (by the US).
They also claim to the laughable concept of legality in war. Iraq was an 'illegal war' to them, and if their are intellectually honest, so was Bosnia. This odd concept of legality shows just how out of touch with reality this line of thinking is. Law is only as strong as the body enforcing it. If the law is set by a clan headman or the supreme court its only an issue as far as they have reach. Illegal orders even more silly. Illegal to who? The winner decides what orders were illegal and what was legal.
Your problem in this is you are viewing this, which to me, is a more rational view point. You don't see war crimes in our actions, therefore this talk seems like crazy talk.