No, but people away from frontlines must at least try to understand what happens at real war, before they start passing judgements.
Soldiers in Abu Ghraib crossed lines in treatment of prisoners in “fog of war”. Lt. Kerry was shooting civilians in Vietnam in “fog of war”. People do terrible things at war. So, why some people are treated differently?
Well said.
Shut the fuck up, shitbag. You could give a shit about consistency or fairness or morality. You’re a partisan whore, nothing more.
Go jerk off to your talking points and leave us alone.
Sorry spunky, but there’s nothing ‘foggy’ about a 15 year old Iraqi boy who you decide to analy rape. There’s nothing ‘foggy’ about having orders to “soften up” prisoners. There’s nothing ‘foggy’ about running voltage through another human being’s genitals.
There is, however, something ‘foggy’ with your mind.
Cite on US soldiers raping 15-year old boy, please?
Let me remind you, all those abused are still alive. Those shot are not.
This was for another ideologue, you read it, asshole Ignorant fuck, try reading a newspaper
Partisan whore.
May as well ask Mt. Everest to stop being so big.
Makes *Ryan seem like the zenith of reason. 
I’m going back to that thread.
Fish in a barrel as they say…
Anyone who throws up false arguments and strawmen to defend this stuff makes baby Jesus want to puke.
My mama always said, douchebag is as douchebag does.
And you should understand what the term “fog of war” actually means before you try to use it in an argument.
Well, if I ever decide I need to write a letter of resignation, now I’ve got the close.
Is this the part where I’m supposed to say something like “Well, yo mamma oughtta know from douchebags, home”?
Because I’m way above that. 
Well, maybe I will vote for Bush, after all.
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
Tris
So if torture is okay, then that means that it was okay for those fuckbags to behead the Americans in the Middle East, right?
Just to clear things up.
:rolleyes:
You’re not thinking in a New Iskander frame of mind, Guin.
When they do horrible things to us, it’s because they are barbaric savages who don’t respect life and must be exterminated like vermin.
When we do horrible things to them, it’s just an unpleasant consequence that comes with any other conflict, and we should simply accept it.
Still no attempt to explain why some ‘war criminals’ go to jail and other ‘war criminals’ go to US Senate.
Oh, well…
no - you are being wilfully obtuse. 
The USA cannot do wrong, by definition. Therefore there can never be moral equivalence. If people are raped and/or killed by an American or one of their lackeys, it’s practically for their own good.
I also note the same article speaks of Bush’s cocaine dealing. Since when do we lock up some drug dealers and elect some to the White House? I look forward to NI’s howls of outrage. I can only assume he isn’t here frothing at this very instant because he accidentally missed that established ‘fact’.
If our definition of war criminal is as wide as Cockburn’s and NI then sure - Kerry is a WC and so was anyone operating in a free-fire zone or supporting Phoenix missions etc. Works for me. Let’s apply it also to the current ‘shoot and kill anything that looks threatening; families in cars, weddings, demonstrations, people who happen to be around when shots are fired’ etc US Iraq policy too. Have to be consistent.
And now that we have established that even the pinhead, lunatic repugnican accepts Cockburn as an unimpeachable source I feel free to post any other ‘facts’ revealed in his writing.
Cockburn is a bona-fide journalist regardless of background IMHO. At least, unlike the Chickenhawks and their cheerleaders, he’s actually on the spot, not in his Mom’s basement squeezing his pimples while jacking off to Rambo like the OP.