US will never let 'friendly-fire' witnesses go to a British court
in an official document the Ministry of Defence makes clear that all requests for US service personnel to give evidence at British inquests will be turned down.
So the USA forces can go around blowing the shit out of who they like.
Im not expecting them to be prosecuted as these things happen in war, but the family could do with an explanation. And an inquest could help stop these mistakes happening in the future.
link. for those who don´t listen to the news
It's a complete joke. You'd expect this sort of arrogance from the US government aswell as someone like the Russians too but the worst thing is that the British PM, Blair before and now Brown won't get on the phone and say, "George, what the **** is going on?" I'm not having a go at the soldiers, it was obviously a mistake and they undoubtably feel awful but the US government as usual makes up the rules as it goes along to cover it's very messy tracks.
Originally posted by snoochyboochies
It's a complete joke. You'd expect this sort of arrogance from the US government aswell as someone like the Russians too but the worst thing is that the British PM, Blair before and now Brown won't get on the phone and say, "George, what the **** is going on?" I'm not having a go at the soldiers, it was obviously a mistake and they undoubtably feel awful but the US government as usual makes up the rules as it goes along to cover it's very messy tracks.
I agree. Obviously, there is more to this than meets the eye, but the families could do with an explaination. Of course, that goes for the US families, the Iraqi families and the Middle East too.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
in an official document the Ministry of Defence makes clear that all requests for US service personnel to give evidence at British inquests will be turned down.So the USA forces can go around blowing the shit out of who they like.
Im not expecting them to be prosecuted as these things happen in war, but the family could do with an explanation. And an inquest could help stop these mistakes happening in the future.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I agree. Obviously, there is more to this than meets the eye, but the families could do with an explaination. Of course, that goes for the US families, the Iraqi families and the Middle East too.
When will people release that war is not a game. You sign up to go to war, you ultimately sign the terms and conditions which include you getting killed.
American government and soldiers do not answer for anything. But then again, I am not sure if British would answer to America...maybe...
War is a game. It has rules and a winner doesn't it? It might not be a fun game when people are getting murdered, but it's still a game.
Also, USA needs better trained soldiers, but no, they just let people from poor towns where the only thing they can do to get the most basic of liberties is join the army. It's sick, and this is even worse. If your country is killing mine when we're on your side, we should be able to take you to court. That goes for all countries.
There are no winners in war and no, it does not have rules.
Well depending who is doing what. If someone from west side of the world does something, its hardly gonna be punished.
When did you hear of any western person go to a world court? Never.
Its not because they don't commit atrocities, but because international court will not persecute their own people.
International court, which was supposed to uphold rules, is only doing that for those who west deems as enemies.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessThere are winners in a war. We won the war against the Germans, because we stopped them fighting. War is a game of who can fight longer. The rules are international rights the UN agrees upon, but I do agree, it is unfair.
There are no winners in war and no, it does not have rules.Well depending who is doing what. If someone from west side of the world does something, its hardly gonna be punished.
When did you hear of any western person go to a world court? Never.
Its not because they don't commit atrocities, but because international court will not persecute their own people.
International court, which was supposed to uphold rules, is only doing that for those who west deems as enemies.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are no winners in war and no, it does not have rules.Well depending who is doing what. If someone from west side of the world does something, its hardly gonna be punished.
When did you hear of any western person go to a world court? Never.
Its not because they don't commit atrocities, but because international court will not persecute their own people.
International court, which was supposed to uphold rules, is only doing that for those who west deems as enemies.
Indeed, the Germans lost WW2, the Nazi's (well some of them) were put infront of courts. Its not that Western countries can't be made acccountable, its just become very obvious, thanks to America, that we dont have to if we dont want to, you just take your ball and go home so to speak.
Originally posted by lord xyz
War is a game. It has rules and a winner doesn't it? It might not be a fun game when people are getting murdered, but it's still a game.Also, USA needs better trained soldiers, but no, they just let people from poor towns where the only thing they can do to get the most basic of liberties is join the army. It's sick, and this is even worse. If your country is killing mine when we're on your side, we should be able to take you to court. That goes for all countries.
If they're not letting witnesses speak out then something is wrong with the situation. They have used 9/11 as a basis to invade two countries now; Afghanistan and Iraq. 2,974 people died in the 9/11 incident; 150,000 (aproximately) people have died because of Iraq, a large number of them civilians. Currently in Afghanistan, about 1,067 civilians have died and many more soldiers on both sides. How in any way is this justice for the dead? And if people are being killed in 'friendly' fire incidents then it's basically just insanity.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Stereotype. Most enlisted people in the military come from households that make more than the national average. Just felt I had to correct that.
the heritage foundation study is completely flawed in that it calculates the average income by zip code, or rather the median income of that zipcode to the amount of enlisted people from that zip code.
rather than figure in the enlisted person's actual income (something the military does not do) they assume that they come from a household which has the exact income as the median.
in other words, lets say the recruit comes from new york city, and lets say for the sake of argument that the median income is 45,000.(45000 is just a guess, since its not important)
never mind if they have a wall street penthouse or live in the projects . it will then be assumed that any enlisted person from new york city comes from a household making 45,000.
i dont think i have to go on explaining why the heritage foundation's study is a complete pack of propaganda and should not be trusted.
fact is we'll never know for sure what the average household income of enlisted soldiers are until they are actually tallied in a census.
The average military recruit 'comes from' places where the average family makes more money. Poor areas are underrepsented, middle class areas are overrepresented, and high income areas are underrepresented. 98% of all recruits have at least a high school diploma, as compared to 79% civilians of the same age group. The AFQT, our version of an 'IQ' test, has increased the number of 'high quality recruits' from 57% to 64% in only five years.
In short, as time goes on, higher and higher quality recruits are joining the ranks. They are not 'from poor towns' and as they statistically have more education than their counterparts they do not 'join only to have the most basic civil liberties.'
Don't talk shit about the troops. That last comment isn't directed at you Schecter, more to XYZ.
Originally posted by Kinneary
In short, as time goes on, higher and higher quality recruits are joining the ranks. They are not 'from poor towns' and as they statistically have more education than their counterparts they do not 'join only to have the most basic civil liberties.'
im not sure if anyone is stereotyping kids of lower income families as being less intelligent or even less educated. i believe that if a true census was taken it would reflect a disproportionate percentage of lower income families. that doesnt imply billy-joe-bob the toothless redneck with an i.q. of 40. just means lower income. but like i said, no such figures are recorded, so we dont know. its all presumption.
Originally posted by Kinneary
The average military recruit 'comes from' places where the average family makes more money. Poor areas are underrepsented, middle class areas are overrepresented, and high income areas are underrepresented. 98% of all recruits have at least a high school diploma, as compared to 79% civilians of the same age group. The AFQT, our version of an 'IQ' test, has increased the number of 'high quality recruits' from 57% to 64% in only five years.In short, as time goes on, higher and higher quality recruits are joining the ranks. They are not 'from poor towns' and as they statistically have more education than their counterparts they do not 'join only to have the most basic civil liberties.'
Don't talk shit about the troops. That last comment isn't directed at you Schecter, more to XYZ.
Source?
Besides like Schecter said, education does not always rival job ability's or their position in the economical ladder.