Iraq inquiry to be held in private

Also - a is well deserved when the likes of you starts trotting out rubbish jargon like 'moral relativism' to win an argument. :P

A rout is not the same as desertion. No casual link between consequences and desertion.

Large numbers of troops fled the city before its capture. Those who stayed tried to forcibly prevent them leaving.

Assertion. No specific example of civilans causing civilian deaths by giving info to the enemy.

The evidence is out there. Tens of thousands of Russians were executed for collaboration with the invaders... I can find specific examples from more than one book at home pretty easily. Leningrad police had to form a special unit to combat cannibalism. Try extrapolating an impression of the extremity of the circumstances from that fact.

Is there any circumstances where soldiers are morally culpable for their actions in your view? Executing unarmed prisoners, participating in death squads, torturing detainees etc...?

Yes there are circumstances, in my view, in which individual soldiers should be held accountable for their actions... and other circumstances in which it's more appropriate (and more "moral") to hold their superiors culpable - or the government that ordered the military to war in the first place.

Thanks for the advice.

This is what I mean. That smiley and the tone you're employing here just make you sound like a nob. Are you arguing to persuade - or to prove that your opinion is superior? Seriously.



And take a deep breath before answering.

Yes there are circumstances, in my view, in which individual soldiers should be held accountable for their actions... and other circumstances in which it's more appropriate (and more "moral") to hold their superiors culpable - or the government that ordered the military to war in the first place.

OK - fine, thats all i wanted to hear. Thank you.

This is what I mean. That smiley and the tone you're employing here just make you sound like a nob. Are you arguing to persuade - or to prove that your opinion is superior? Seriously.

And take a deep breath before answering.

Seriously - you're giving me lessons in how to behave in an argument?

You must be joking... I may take a certain tone with you, but only because Ive been subjected to your tiresome 'devils advocate' tactics time and again... so no, I'm not trying to persuade you, because Ive learnt that there isnt much point in trying to persuade someone who automatically takes a contrary position and enjoys arguing for the sake of it... which is precisely what my was aimed at.

And please - don't betray your conceit with that 'take a deep breath' nonsense. Classic debating tactic there though, insult your opponent and then tell him not to get so worked up... unfortunately this isnt the Trinity debating society!

[Statto]

Loyalty to your mates saves your life, sure, but not unquestioning discipline. The point of that is quite the opposite: it's to make the army effective, so that soldiers will do what they're ordered to do, even though it's likely to get them killed.

I can guarantee that the majority of soldiers will testify that response under fire is down to discipline - when unquestioning training is suposed to take over. Obviously this can be the very same thing that also gets them killed - but find me one soldier who doesn't testify to the usefulness of discipline in keeping him alive during war.

well, ok, I guess discipline allows you to keep your head under fire, instead of running away in a blind panic

Seriously - you're giving me lessons in how to behave in an argument?

Yes. As you might say: moderate thyself.

... I may take a certain tone with you, but only because Ive been subjected to your tiresome 'devils advocate' tactics time and again... so no, I'm not trying to persuade you, because Ive learnt that there isnt much point in trying to persuade someone who automatically takes a contrary position and enjoys arguing for the sake of it... which is precisely what my was aimed at.

First: my thoughts and feelings about violence and its employment are not clear-cut. I don't believe that armies are made up of 90% politically under-educated non-fighters, and 10% homicidal maniacs. I believe that our circumstances dictate our morality, and that that morality can - and often does change in violent environments, or when our own lives are threatened. The 'right' thing to do is, for me, usually reasonably clear, but I can imagine how war would test that to extremes I can't fathom from here.

Second: I don't give a fuck what motivations you imagine for me at any given point - I deserve to be accorded the same respect you would give anyone else in an argument or debate.

And please - don't betray your conceit with that 'take a deep breath' nonsense. Classic debating tactic there though, insult your opponent and then tell him not to get so worked up... unfortunately this isnt the Trinity debating society!

From where I'm standing, telling you that your manner is overly aggressive and dismissive is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Which you need to hear.

Believe me, I'd much rather enjoy having my intellectual processes stimulated by an informed and animated discussion with you than get distracted by rubbish - like that last comment.

well, ok, I guess discipline allows you to keep your head under fire, instead of running away in a blind panic

Not just in that situation. Obviously discipline is one of the chief appeals of the military - and a very powerful one at that.

Obedience in the military offers a certain abdication of responsibility - certainly in a moral sense. The 'other'/the enemy is pointed out and clearly identified to you - and your mission is simple - go forth and conquer them. Obey. But obedience is also a form of discipline, and discipline can clearly be very empowering.

Yes. As you might say: moderate thyself.

Im more than entitled to roll my eyes when you make a spurious comment. Your use of the propaganda term 'moral relativism' deserved, it as I know that you should know better.

First: my thoughts and feelings about violence and its employment are not clear-cut. I don't believe that armies are made up of 90% politically under-educated non-fighters, and 10% homicidal maniacs. I believe that our circumstances dictate our morality, and that that morality can - and often does change in violent environments, or when our own lives are threatened. The 'right' thing to do is, for me, usually reasonably clear, but I can imagine how war would test that to extremes I can't fathom from here.

And I agree with that to an extent. IL attempts to set absolute benchmarks, but that doesnt mean that situations cant be judged on their own merits. I never claimed otherwise.

BTW - that 10%/90% (its actually more like 15/85) ratio has been true for much of history as far as military historians can tell (90% of muskets at Gettysburg were found unfired or loaded with multiple rounds). Its only been very recently, and probably only in modern Western armies that the kill ratio has been reversed.

Second: I don't give a fuck what motivations you imagine for me at any given point - I deserve to be accorded the same respect you would give anyone else in an argument or debate.

Nice. I could say the same for your condescending attitude and ability to criticise the behaviour of others whilst behaving in the same (or worse) fashion. For example, you've been building a straw man for this whole page. I never claimed that individual soldiers should bear the brunt of responsibilty for war crimes, I simply said that are not immune from culpability. I conceded several points a good few posts ago and you continued to press the point unneccesarily by refusing to answer a valid quesiton and asking questions which I had essentially already addressed.

From where I'm standing, telling you that your manner is overly aggressive and dismissive is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Which you need to hear.

Well, the justified use of a which has sparked this is not cause for this level of drama or personal attacks TBH. Im surprised youve reacted so violently and I apologise if you think I was being dismissive and aggressive as that wasnt my intention, in fact 3 rolls obviously indicates I was taking the piss.

BUT

You need to hear a few things too:
1) Youre a bit sensitive today arent you?
2) I dont feel the need to mince words with you and I know you feel the same.
3) From where Im standing it looks to me as if you often use tactics that make it seem like you would rather win the argument at any cost rather than simply have a discussion ala:

I'd much rather enjoy having my intellectual processes stimulated by an informed and animated discussion with you than get distracted by rubbish - like that last comment.

And yeah, I'd prefer that too.

[Statto]

Your use of the propaganda term 'moral relativism' deserved, it as I know that you should know better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Its only been very recently, and probably only in modern Western armies that the kill ratio has been reversed.

Yes, but we were talking about Iraq to begin with.

you've been building a straw man for this whole page.

What are you talking about? I was trying to account for the psychology of militarism, and to examine the motivations that underpin a soldier's behaviour - such as the following of orders.

I never claimed that individual soldiers should bear the brunt of responsibilty for war crimes, I simply said that are not immune from culpability.

You also claimed:

it would have been clear to all but the greenest new recruit that something dodgy was afoot.

you'd have to be a complete moron not to have some inkling

So, was participation in the Iraq war a war crime?

From where Im standing it looks to me as if you often use tactics that make it seem like you would rather win the argument at any cost rather than simply have a discussion

You would think that. But how does this arc read to you?

why do 90% of them shoot to miss?

Show me the evidence that training has changed to such a degree that the previous, widescale studies are now irrelevant or false.

The studies have been done, and are so well known that I didn't bother linking. Look up the Marshall study.

You may be right that training has changed the statistics drastically, but all you've done is asserted this with no evidence.

Wow. Well done. Evidence for once...

Yes, but we were talking about Iraq to begin with.

And UK troops. I'm not sure what the kill/aiming ratio is and what training in the UK is like. That was a response to you comment that you dont believe that most soldiers shoot to miss. I'm saying that's probably still true - though not for the US army which you have pointed out.

What are you talking about? I was trying to account for the psychology of militarism, and to examine the motivations that underpin a soldier's behaviour - such as the following of orders.

And in the process shifted the goalposts from the point that soldiers can be held morally and legally culpable to saying that they should be pursued above their political masters - something I never claimed.

Also, after I said this:

The point is that there are situations where we can all agree that a soldier has moral culbability for their actions and 'just following orders' is not an excuse. The question is - were British soldiers in one of those situations?

And this:

Im not calling for 'all-out absolute solutions', I'm simply pointing out the obvious. Soldiers have an obligation to act within international law, and they have more of a choice to be involved in war than civilians in a warzone.

You went on to throw a load of completely unrelated moral questions at me which, TBH I really should've ignored as they were totally irrelevant.

So, was participation in the Iraq war a war crime?

It fits the definition of aggression from Nuremberg, so yes.

Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

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. "I was following orders", is not an excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

There is of course a scale of culpability, which includes citizens of states that supported the war.

You would think that. But how does this arc read to you?

why do 90% of them shoot to miss?

I believed this was true when I wrote it.

Show me the evidence that training has changed to such a degree that the previous, widescale studies are now irrelevant or false.

A response to your comment:

You introduce statistics - with no evidence - based on studies that may or may not have been done in the past - and then ask me to prove them wrong in the present day?

Which implied that I was making up the statisitc.

The studies have been done, and are so well known that I didn't bother linking. Look up the Marshall study.

They are well known. I google things all the time, I expect you to do the same rather than just assume I'm lying.

You may be right that training has changed the statistics drastically, but all you've done is asserted this with no evidence.

Again - if you ask for evidence and imply that Im making stuff up I can do the same.

Wow. Well done. Evidence for once...

Yeah... that was just after you condescendingly gave me some 'advice'... If I was really trying to win the argument I could have argued that point ad infinitum rather than accepting it and backing up your point.


Any-way... so its all going to be public now.

Great.

I dont feel the need to mince words with you

Well now you know that you need to.

Ill remember your newfound sensitivity next time you call me a nob and offer me condescending advice.