Gary Solis nominated for Dumbass of the Year Award

Gary Solis, “Adjunct Professor” at Georgetown University Law Center puked up some crap and the Washington Post printed it.  The gist of his article was that CIA operators of the drone attacks in Afghanistan makes them “unlawful combatants” no different from the terrorist rag heads that they are targeting, and subject to “lawful attacks” by the  wherever they are found, whether in the U.S.A. or in Afghanistan (where several were recently killed by a suicide bomber). 

“In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents [operating drones over Afghanistan] are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities….”

“If the CIA civilian personnel recently killed by a suicide bomber in Khost, Afghanistan, were directly involved in supplying targeting data, arming or flying drones in the combat zone, they were lawful targets of the enemy, although the enemy himself was not a lawful combatant….”

Well la-dee fucking da!   I’m sure their relatives and friends will be happy to hear that Mr. Solis thinks that they were unlawful combatants and “lawful targets of the enemy.”  I’m glad that you served in ‘Nam and are a distinguished scholar, but I wonder what happened to your common sense?  No, Dumbass of the Year Nominee, it is not “lawful” to target anybody when you yourself are an unlawful combatant. 

Ask yourself this: If the suicide bomber who killed the CIA agents had lived, could he have been prosecuted? Hell yes.  He did not kill the agents in “self-defense.”  It is not an excuse that he was trying to protect other unlawful combatants from being killed. They had no rights not to be killed.  Since they are unlawful themselves, it is never “lawful” for them to kill our soldiers or civilians–or anybody–you incredible dumbass.  Beyond that, what difference does it make whether the CIA are lawful or unlawful when they are killed? They are still dead. And are you implying that, except for the fact that the CIA agents were “out of uniform,”  the ragheads wouldn’t try to kill our agents?  Whether they were “unlawful combatants” or not is totally irrelevant.  Rag heads don’t abide by the Geneva Convention.  

But hey, I know where you are going with this: You are angling to be appointed by A.G. Holder along with all those other attorneys who defended the Muslim terrorists, aren’t you big boy? You will fit right in the Obama Adminstration, I’ll say that.

p.s.  Here’s another article he wrote over two years ago where he asked whether our system of military justice is broken.  His main points:  Some of those soldiers accused of massacring civilians in Haditha had their charges dropped.   Oh my!  JAG Corp prosecutors were no match for the civilian lawyers appointed to defend our troops!  Oh me!  Military juries seem to demand absolute proof rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt!”  Oh my! And sometimes sentences meted out by military juries are not commensurate with the crime!  Oh no!  

Well boo-frickin’ hoo, we have those same problems in our civilian system of justice.  When accused of crimes civilian crimes, especially the rich are able to hire lawyers that are more experienced and able than their prosecutors.  Many civilians often have their charges dropped. And civilian juries often don’t follow the law, either.  Say hello to John Murtha when you see him in hell. I’m sure you and him were BFF. 

[Too harsh? Let me know. I sometimes get carried away.]

38 responses to “Gary Solis nominated for Dumbass of the Year Award

  1. Richard Garrison

    The reason there is law during war is because it is important who is allowed to be targeted and who isn’t. There is no total war any longer and there hasn’t even been an argument for it for almost a century (see kriegsraison). The issue that the CIA personnel may or may not be unlawful combatants determines whether they are prosecutable as well as targetable. If they were to go to another country and be arrested, they could potentially be responsible for murder. (see – Kenneth Anderson’s Predators over Pakistan article in the weekly standard arguing that the CIA’s involvement is legal, also Jordan Paust for that side. Alternatively, see Marko Milanovic for the other side). The idea that we can target whoever we want is ridiculous. No one in the US Army advocates for such a position and the Army JAG would such a position to be so violative of the law that it would just laugh.

    Also, the rule of law is essential to a democracy, ask Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc (they’re the basis for all your Reagan era economic policies so I’m not referencing some Keynian maniac). That’s why military justice matters, because the law must be supported, not disregarded when inconvenient.

    Lastly, Solis taught at West Point teaching military officers before moving to Georgetown and his textbook is used in the Law of War class at the US Army JAG School and he regularly speaks there. David Graham, Dir. of the Army JAG school agrees with Solis on this point about the CIA too – see the ABA national security panel on targeted killing from November 1. The video is online. I mean, he’s not as legally conservative as Hays Parks, but who is? Plus Hays Parks would agree with him. If there’s an armed conflict, the CIA’s participation is illegal. That’s the law.

    I realize you posted this 9 months ago, but I just ran across it. Perhaps you should consider getting better legal training before posting something opposing something the entire military and legal profession would agree with. This post belittles everything that the JAG stands for and if I were you I would take it down. If not, I’d appreciate it if you allowed my comment to post to your blog so that people can at least consider the alternative viewpoint.

    Full disclosure, I met Solis once at the Army JAG school, he wasn’t a teacher but came in as a guest speaker for class.

  2. You danced around my point, perhaps because you have a hero worship thing going on. My main point is that it is not “lawful” for “unlawful combatants” to attack them. IF we were at war with an enemy who had “lawful combatants” of their own, then yes, perhaps the CIA agents would be afforded no more than unlawful combatant status, but we ain’t. LAWFUL combatants could lawfully attack them, but unlawful combatants never can lawfully attack anything.

    And you completely ignored my other point about this little prick–that he was boo-hoooing because our legal system worked and some soldiers were released. What, got your nose so far up his ass that you missed that point? I don’t give a shit where he taught, I call an idiot out whenever I find one.

    p.s. I’ll match my legal training and experience up against yours any day. Graduated from Wake Forest University School of Law in 1987 and practiced 23 years in Virginia. Besides, you and I both know that those who are high up in their classes become law clerks and go to the top tier law firms, and those in the bottom, who can’t get in with a good firm, go to JAG Corp. Nothing against those who serve, but those are the facts.

  3. Well la-de-da… ain’t this some fun, a couple of barristers arguing the legalities and niceties of war?

    Gentlemen, I know something about war and the rules go like this…
    1] The first rule of warfare is… there are no damn, rules!

    I know there are such mostly useless, legal concepts, as The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols
    Believe me, that’s just one, very large, load of bravo sierra… once the bullets start flyin’ and the IED’s get detonated.

    Yes innocent civilians do unfortunately, get maimed and killed…that’s usually the result of cowardly, armed, participants placing their heavy weapons or headquarters in close proximity to civilian enclaves, hospitals or schools. [ie: VC and AIQ]

    I once fought in a war where the enemy almost always wore civilian garb and surrounded themselves with women and children when moving in open areas. Packed bicycles with C4 and detonated them where civilians and soldiers congregated. They also placed IED’s on public roads were soldiers and civilians were often killed and maimed simultaneously…

    So don’t talk “rules of engagement” to me or any other “combat veteran” …you kill the sorry, effin’, bastards any which, way, you can; before he or she kills you…

    Never evah, fergit, RULE # ONE…!

    • I stumbled across this whilst doing some research and thought I’d throw in a response so you can jump around and rant some more about how stupid laws, morals and the real world are.

      Sadly, the kind of attitude you display in that post is why a lot of foreigners think of the stereotypical American soldier as an ill-disciplined joke. Referring to the Geneva conventions as a “useless legal concept” pretty much discounts you from reasonable discussion. Remind me, how did indiscriminately killing people in Vietnam work out for you guys? Win that one?

      As an ex-British infantryman I also know a little something about war, having taken part in your war in Afghanistan. I, unlike you, am more than happy to talk about rules of engagement because I’ve seen the huge problems and setbacks caused by idiots who follow your retarded “RULE # ONE…!”

      I’m guessing that Richard Garrison hasn’t responded to your rants because there’s nothing worth responding to. Simply saying that there’s no rules in war and you can do whatever you want isn’t really an argument. It’s a delusion – unless you’re fighting in an illegally constituted militia or insurgent group. Otherwise, you joined the legally constituted armed force of a sovereign nation which has promised to abide by certain rules and norms, you must accept those rules in order to serve. Otherwise you disgrace yourself and that armed force, as well as leaving yourself liable to prosecution.

      Anyway, feel free to carry on in your delusional world where the world would be a better place if only Americans were able to kill whoever they wanted, wherever and whenever they want.

  4. For ONCE Gramps and I agree on something. What’s next? Gays openly serving in the military?

    • It doesn’t make, no never mind, to me JD…

      You carried yer “ruck”, you did yer job, you had my back or my flank and I know you can shoot real good. I’ve seen you do it, months on end.
      You’re an integral, part of the team…

      Different strokes, fer different folks…
      Cheers, Trooper…!

  5. …“In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents [operating drones over Afghanistan] are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities….”

    That’s certainly one wordy, load, of crapolla…!
    What’s the “Adjunct Professor” saying…that the lack of uniforms, distance or remoteness from your intended target determines your legitimacy as a lawful combatant…?

    So then…
    1] I’m laying hidden in my camo, Ghillie suit, 15 meters from the trail with my M4 and blow Charlie, away where he can’t see me and doesn’t expect it…done it before?
    2] Instead of shootin’ Charlie, my ownself, I call in an air strike and the A4 pilot blows him away with an ATG missile from 1000 meters away…done it before?
    3] Or I call in an artillery barrage and the 155’s take Charlie, out from 7000 meters distance…done it before?
    4] Perhaps Charlie is on known infiltration route and I radio a B-52 at 18,000 meters up to turn his 500 pounders loose?
    5] Say everybody else is committed and I request a cruise missile strike, from a Destroyer, 1400 miles distant at sea?
    6] Oh and Heaven forbid… perhaps even request via satellite phone, the engagement, of Beelzebub, him ownself, from 14,000 miles, away, half way around the globe…to run a Hellfire,missile, up Charlie’s sorry, bony, arse, utilizing a locally stationed, circling, Global Hawk, UAV…?

    From my point of view as combatant, I fail to see any significant difference in the fairness or the manner in which Charlie gets blown away…just so he’s blown to hell and never comes back…!

    Oh and the fact that Charlie doesn’t know it’s comin’ and can’t defend himself by shootin’ back…
    What can I say… War is Hell… it fact, it can be a real son-of-a Bitch…
    Always remember Rule #[1]…and don’t ferget, Rule # [1a]…Do onto others before they do onto you…!

  6. Being a fancy pants lawyer, sitting on your ass all day, multiple timezones from where the action is, and especially being a big shot professor who teaches at West Point or wherever, tends to warp your common sense. Solis is Exhibit A of what shit-headed thinking can result in such cicumstances…

  7. Richard Garrison wrote:

    ”…The reason there is law during war is because it is important who is allowed to be targeted and who isn’t. There is no total war any longer and there hasn’t even been an argument for it for almost a century (see kriegsraison)…
    “…The idea that we can target whoever we want is ridiculous. No one in the US Army advocates for such a position and the Army JAG would such a position to be so violative of the law that it would just laugh.
    Also, the rule of law is essential to a democracy, ask Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc (they’re the basis for all your Reagan era economic policies so I’m not referencing some Keynian maniac). That’s why military justice matters, because the law must be supported, not disregarded when inconvenient.”

    Dearest Richard…

    The rule of law may be essential to a well run, democracy…
    However; war is the antithesis of democracy and the rule of law, has never and will never stand, in times of war, or at least any war I’ve ever participated in!

    Unlike in the law, precedence has no standing in warfare…I believe I stated that convention earlier…
    The first rule of warfare is…There are no rules… there is no precedence.
    Once you come to appreciate “them apples”,everything else will come easy…!

    Like it or not Kiddo…them’, “the cards you’ve been dealt”…
    Deal with it!

  8. “There is no total war any longer and there hasn’t even been an argument for it for almost a century”??? WTf? Evidently Mr. Pompous Ass never heard of WWII? The firebombing of Dresden? A couple of bombs that were dropped over Japan? If that ain’t total war, then I don’t know what is.

  9. I’m waitin’… fer Mr. Richard Garrisson’s response…!

  10. Dear, Richard…
    Here we stand like birds in the wilderness…
    Here we stand like birds in the wilderness…
    Waiting fer yer response…

  11. is this you gary solis???? hahaha you dumbass!!! lots of american soldiers and civilians died from the works of insurgents… then you call these actions unlawful?!?!?!?! wheres your brain man? if we can nuke these idiots, then why not?!?!?! i am very pro with any actions of the US forces…. you have to do everything you can to win the war! and oh.. to all those human rights people!!! fuck you all!!!! punish those criminals and put them to shame for what they did to the innocent victims!!!! i am pro for the vigilantes and supporters against criminals and afghanis ahkmadis! hahahahaha Gary you are gay and stupid!!! i wish they will put you in suit and ut you in the middle of the war so that you can feel the rush… i bet you will pee on your self… heheheehh

  12. ey i have an idea!!! why dont you kidnap gary solis and put him in the middle of afghanistans war. heheheh or beside bin laden even. hehehehe

    hey gary!!!! this guy was named medal of honor.. he and his team died in an ambush in afghanistan, he killed 20 afghans before he died….. now… talking about your lawfullness…. do you think ambush is lawful? or placing IEDs in the streets lawful? or using the airline planes to crash twin towers lawful??? wheres your brain dude???? if you wanna keep peace! eliminate them in anyway dumbass!!! the reason why we are not winning its because of people like you thats hindering the actions of the generals!!!!!!!

  14. Solis sucks. He’s playing the war hero angle all the while stabbing our troops in the back. All he needs now is to marry a millionaire devorcee’ and he’ll be John Kerry Heinz Jr.

  15. Yeah, you probably fight using the Marquess of Queensbury rules when a guy pulls a gun on you. “Ok, ole Chap, despite the fact that you are not playing by the rules, I shall box you ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH! You can’t shoot me, BLOOOOOOOOOOOOODY hell! Stop that SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE! Don’t do that again old Man! Blam Blam Blam. When the other side does not abide by the “rules” then only morons continue to abide by them. Rule number one is to win/stay alive. After winning, then little bitches like you can worry about rule infractions.

    • Having seen the level of intellectual prowess on display here, I realise it wasn’t worth bothering with in the first place.
      Give your brain a chance for half a second – when you fight someone who murders prisoners, hides in the civilian population and generally ignores the rules, do you really think that it helps you to win if you ignore them too and cease to care who you kill or how you do it? It may feel good for your inner redneck to “get some payback” and feel all macho, but it also leads to mission failure. Do you really think the British Army would have succeeded during the Malayan emergency if they’d taken the “fuck it, kill ’em all!” attitude that you seem to advocate?
      Why do you think the war in Vietnam turned into such a quagmire? Do you really think that US forces ever had a chance once the regular people started associating them with indiscriminate violence?
      I can worry about the rules as much as I want because I’ve seen what happens when people ignore them or ignore the spirit of them. I’ve seen and spoken to villagers terrified of NATO troops because every time they saw them before they were followed by widespread artillery damage and indiscriminate firing. Strangely enough, that doesn’t help you win the war. It just creates more fertile ground for insurgent propaganda and recruiting.
      Real courage isn’t blowing up everything in sight. Real courage is not calling for an airstrike or an artillery mission because you know that killing the enemy sniper/MG/whatever will also kill the family next door and set back the cause, making it more dangerous for the troops who end up in your area the next year.
      Your arguments are pathetic. Nothing but an appeal to the base, macho urge for ‘revenge’ and ‘victory’. Such stupidity only makes wars last longer and gets more people killed.

  16. I HOPE you were better at fighting than you are with “logic.” You set up a straw-man and then succeed to be a big man and shoot it full of holes. Problem is, nobody here says fire artillery indiscriminently. Although I do advocate threatening to turn Mecca into a hole in the desert to prevent the ragheads from using a nuke against the USA. The USA and Brits “fired indiscriminently” in WWII. Dresdan was turned into a fire storm. Innocent French were killed in the invasion. You do what you have to do to win. If a sniper is shooting behind women and children, the commandere on site needs to decide whether to bomb him into next week or not. It depends on whether soldiers are getting killed or not. If you can avoid a fight, and not risk soldiers, fine, slink away and fight him at a different location. If it means having a platoon slowly picked off, then bring in the bombs. War is hell.

    Get a history lesson, fuck face. The US did not “lose” in Vietnam. The US pulled out, and then the liberal fuck face politicians cut off aid to the South Vietnam despite the fact that the NVC were still supplied by the Russians. You can keep any old assinine opinion that you want, but you are not allowed to make up your own facts.

  17. Gramps ridicules the Geneva convention as “useless”. You say only “morons” follow the rules. You both agree that you should be able to do whatever and kill whoever you want in order to survive. That pretty much encompasses using indiscriminate artillery or anything else you care to think of. Your argument that “they broke the rules first so we can’t possibly be guilty of rule breaking no matter what we do” is equally shortsighted. The only thing made of straw here appears to be your argument.
    Your plans for mecca and use of the term “raghead” pretty much sums up your braindead, racist point of view. Your kind knows only hate and violence, your methods can only bring more hate and more war – never peace unless you can kill every single human being who is not just like you. Your insane defence of the CIA, no matter what methods they use is proof of your myopic outlook – Non-uniformed muslims planting bombs to blow people and structures they see as their enemy = bad. Non-uniformed christians using drones to blow up people enjoying a barbecue with their family who the see as their enemy = good. If you want to have the CIA wandering about deciding who lives and who dies whilst wearing a nice suit, I fail to see how you can complain when an Islamic insurgent decides to blow them up at work, at home or whilst taking a shower.
    My biggest problem with people like you is the utter one-sidedness of your outlook. You firmly believe you have the right to kill whoever you want wherever they are in the world because a government agency decides they’re an enemy. Yet how happy would you have been if the Royal Navy had fired a cruise missile and killed any of the prominent Irish Republican terrorists who regularly visited America in the 70s and 80s to drum up funds to blow up British soldiers, police and civilians?

    Dresden was a terrible thing. It was stupid and abominable. I’m not sure if it was a war crime. Perhaps the best decision was the one taken – not to prosecute either side for city bombings but to try and consign it to history. At least the world learnt how awful it was and not to try and do it again.

    When did I say war will not involve civilian deaths? Everyone knows it does. The difference is that we should always aim to avoid them if at all possible – that’s what the “rules” that you hate so much insist upon. Sometimes you accept doing something that will expose you and your soldiers to more risk because it will reduce the risk of civilians getting killed. Once you say “our” lives are more valuable than “theirs” you might as well go home.

    I see you’re a deluded right wing revisionist. America lost in Vietnam, plain and simple. You may have killed 2 million Vietnamese, but you failed to create a capable, indigenous government and army. You failed to break the will of the North. You failed to convince the people of Vietnam as a whole that they were better off accepting the regime in the South. If you’d committed even more men and agreed to stay forever, you might have maintained a territory nominally under control of a Southern puppet regime, constantly fighting to maintain itself against the North and the population of the South, but would that have been victory? Really? The armed forces do not exist in a vacuum. Where was the money going to come from for such a pitiful “victory”? How many citizens would rush to volunteer for Vietnam occupation year 35?
    Use of the term “fuck face” strikes me as the last, bitter cry of a beaten man. Run back to the safety of your right wing, Stars and Stripes waving crowd. Settle down in front of “Red Dawn” and the Rambo series, because that’s as close to reality as you’re ever going to get.

  18. Avoid killing civilians “if at all possible”? Some raghead is sniping from a mosque, killing your mates, and you are not going to blast him for fear of civilian (possible) casualties? No wonder you are no longer in the service. Your mates probably drummed you out.

  19. And that is where we’ll end it. You with nothing to say bar some weak, personal attack. I won’t bore you with my reasons for leaving, but wanting to actually live within 150 miles of my wife had something to do with it.

    As it happens, in the case I remember most vividly, it was my company commander who called off the airstrike when heat signatures were seen that were probably the family being held hostage by the gunmen. It was a strong decision, it was the right thing to do. We went from hearing villagers complaining about NATO killers to hearing villagers thank us for showing restraint and trying not to kill people caught up in the crossfire. When a local tells one of your officers that he went from believing the Taliban propaganda about NATO to trusting us and thinking we were good people after seeing us operate and treating wounded friends of his, you start to see the bigger picture – something forever lost to you.

    I wonder how many people didn’t join the insurgency because my boss decided not to kill anyone unless it was absolutely necessary? How many attacks never happened because of him and people like him? How many of my friends were killed by people who joined the insurgency because of stupid, short-sighted idiots who decided they needed to slake their thirst for revenge, violence and ignoring the rules?

    Whatever, I don’t expect you to think too hard about it. I’m just glad you’ve never had the chance to wear a uniform and become part of the problem.

  20. Your commander had the luxury of not bombing the civilians because nobody was being killed. If that sniper was holding hostages and killing your mates, then your genius commander would have had a tougher call. Fuck you. Too bad America bailed the Brits out in WWII. You’d be using the German to English translator now if you wanted to comment here.

  21. Ok, one more because I can’t resist. Then I seriously will leave it at that, I really do have better things to do with my time than trade insults with a nincompoop.
    I just wonder if you’ve ever tried using the “fuck you” argument in court? You know, when your guy obviously did it and you have no argument with any semblance of integrity to make, do you just throw the “fuck you” defense out there? Does it ever work? If your conduct here is anything like your professional approach, you must be one dog shit lawyer.

    Good job on the WWII line. You could also use it to prove that sound travels at about 350 inches per second. After all, we blew the bugle against fascism in September 1939 and it took over a year to cross the Atlantic. Still, gave you plenty of time to make some money out of a life and death struggle and the agony of others didn’t it? Guess not a lot has changed in the “Land of the Free” since then.

    It’s been a pleasure, and you’ve certainly given me a good laugh, but now I shall bid you adieu.

  22. Unfortunately Jon, I think you missed the whole point of the discussion. War is hell, but it becomes worse than hell when politicians decide that maintaining the status quo is better than just winning the damn war in the first place.

    As an aside,you Brits most likely wouldn’t have made it past the blitz of 1940 without the weapons and material supplied to you from us while we got our own troops up to speed before sending many of them to their deaths defending Merry Olde England from the encroaching Nazi hoard.

    • Mr G. As a new commenter, I guess you deserve a reply:

      Could you explain the point that you think I have missed? From what I can see, the OP took an article by a subject matter expert discussing the legality of CIA actions in the horribly ill-defined “war on terror”, he and many other posters then proceeded to attack the professor by using various insulting names, disparaging his mental abilities and suggesting he is a homosexual (isn’t it quaint some people think that’s somehow an insult?). There was also reasonably offensive language used to identify muslims and people of Arab or Persian origin. The overall impression given was one I’ve found common to right-wing blogs – pretend you’re there to discuss the issues politely, but really it’s just an exercise in schoolyard name calling and pushing your prejudices.

      The only lines of actual argument that came out of all this were:

      1 – War has no rules. All rules are pointless and must be ignored by soldiers so that they can win.
      Interestingly, people seem to think that America’s ‘enemies’ are to be cursed for breaking such rules, but Americans themselves must be able to break them without a care in the world.
      Of course, the argument ignores the idea that war might be about more than just killing everyone else standing and doing so may actually hamper your cause and lead to overall defeat. It also ignores the fact that such laws came about in order to try and control the awful potential of modern warfare. It’s clear that they will not always be followed by everyone, but by providing a form of international peer pressure, doing our best to prosecute those who break the rules and encouraging revulsion in people when rules are broken , we aim to make following the rules the natural thing to do. In so doing, war becomes slightly less brutal – witness both sides in WWII largely not attacking each others ambulances and hospitals. Breaking the rules has resulted in a sense of shame and urge to pacifism in post-war Japan and Germany.

      2 – America’s ‘enemies’ broke the rules by using terrorist tactics and asymmetrical warfare, therefore the rules cease to exist for America.
      You even have the frighteningly silly line; “they [unlawful combatants] had no rights not to be killed”. Of course, that argument is a nonsense. Its obvious conclusion is that after accepting the German surrender, we could have had 6 million Germans gassed because, hey, they did it first. It’s a sort of childish “he stole my diary so I should be allowed to burn his actionman toys” argument. It is also riven with emotional baggage, hence the “it’s ok to kill a foreigner whilst he’s sitting at home reading a book, but absolutely not ok to kill a non-uniformed American operative at any time” line. That anyone can make such an argument with a straight face is beyond me.
      Thank god none of the people here are policemen, or I imagine we’d end up with suspects being beaten to death on the street because “they broke the law first”.

      I’ve answered both those arguments in the posts above to Gramps and John Doe, so if there is another point that you think I’ve missed, please let me know.

      When you say ” War is hell, but it becomes worse than hell when politicians decide that maintaining the status quo is better than just winning the damn war in the first place.” Aren’t you just restating argument #1? In which case, I’ve answered you. And I’m not sure what you’re driving at by the term ‘status quo’ here.

      The problem is, that no one can force America to abide by international laws, precedents and norms. So you can drop a bomb on a house in a faraway land without having to tell anyone your reasons or what evidence you have. You don’t apologise when perfectly innocent bystanders are killed, you refuse to even talk about it. You round up people, torture them, hold them without charge for years at a time and then, release some of them when you admit you have nothing on them. Yet those men have lost chunks of their life for nothing. You don’t mind because they’re all muslims and it doesn’t affect you. But it tramples all over people’s human rights and international understandings. When you live in a third world nation and the only thing you know about America is that they occasionally blow stuff up and kill people in your home town, do you think that might make you consider violent retribution?
      That’s why people generally don’t give a toss when an American politician attempts to pronounce on any other nation’s standards. Unilateralism, ignoring the law and generally acting like a spoiled child is the reason so many people hate the USA. The right wing tries to pretend that people flew planes into the World Trade Centre because they hated your “freedoms”. That’s patently trash. I didn’t see them lining up to fly planes into cities in the free and tolerant Scandinavian nations. Right wingers wave flags and cheer at how many ‘ragheads’ have been killed today, but every act of violence or unseen drone merely increases feelings of contempt and creates more willing young recruits who just want to kill an American before they die. It really doesn’t make the world safer.
      This gets at the heart of the problem. This horrible conceit held by some that America has some divine mission on Earth and has the right to do whatever it wants. I, for one, almost can’t believe that there are supposedly serious American politicians talking about an invasion of Iran. It is seriously scary. Can you imagine any other civilised nation behaving like this?

      Do you really think that if we followed your advice, burned the rule book and got on with “winning” the war we wouldn’t still be dying and scared of suicide bombers in 50 years time?

      In answer to your aside, I could sit and discuss military history all day, but this is not really the place for it. I used the semi-serious line in order to ridicule John Doe’s childlike reversion to the “oh, we won the war so how dare you argue with me!” line of attack. If you want to talk about politics, profiteering, the useful and useless equipment provided under lend-lease etc, I’d be happy to, but in another forum.

  23. THe points that you miss is that war cannot be won by playing by a set of rules by which the other side does not abide. All civilized nations agree that it is impermissible to hijack a plane, murder the pilots and fly the planes into the World Trade Centers. I’m pretty sure that violated your sacred Geneva Convention on several levels. That sacred text (in your eyes) allows enemy combatants who are fighting in civilian clothing or worse in their enemies uniforms to be shot as spys. It does not apply to the combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan as they are not parties to the treaty. A treaty is not unilateral, it is bilateral or it does not apply. It is as stupid as entering a fight and abiding to the Marquess of Queensbury’s rules, while the other side is fighting with no rules and a knife and a gun. Hell, I’m all for getting the ragheads to enter into the Geneva Convention, but unless and until they do and they abide by its terms, I say fuck them and don’t tie our hands behind our backs and abide by it when they don’t. They behead prisoners, we let them go to fight again.

    And about my “fuck you” argument, that is reserved for imbeciles who do not know history and who intentionally or ignorantly misstate what occurred. I’m old enough to remember what happened in ‘Nam. Our ignorant leftists undermined our will to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves from NVC who were supplied by Russia with weapons. Once the leftist controlled senate cut off all aid to the south, the north was able to over power them. The fuck you part comes in here: What if the leftists controlled American senate back in 1942 had said fuck you to the Brits, we’re going to cut off aid and not send troops to help you? You fucking pathetic fucks would be speaking German. I personally know many good people who fled (or their parents fled) Vietnam after the commies over-ran the south. And you, you pathetic fuck, have the nerve to blame them for the loss of their country. You fucking sicken me.

  24. I’ve answered your first paragraph many times already. You’ve removed the dead horse and are now flogging the ground where it lay. LOAC says we can shoot partisans for not wearing uniforms, that’s fine. I’d argue it’s usually counter productive, but still legal. It also says that a civilian sitting in an office in Langley who is targeting and killing perceived enemies in other sovereign nations is not defined as a combatant either. In which case, he falls into the “illegal combatant” group, a term coined by America in the past decade. Pretty simple really.
    The whole idea of flying drones to kill anyone you want on the other side of the world is also fraught with difficulty. The ‘self-defence’ argument is tosh. You can’t use it to kill anyone you want just because a government department says “he’s a bad guy, trust me on that”. In all honesty, I’m pretty bored of you simply restating your initial argument over and over again despite the fact that I have countered it.

    Your second paragraph – you’ll forgive me if I don’t take your interpretation as gospel simply because you were alive at the time. After all, if you’re alive in 50 years time I imagine you’ll be telling people about the “great war on terror” where those “dirty ragheads attacked us at every turn because we were free and they weren’t and dirty leftists tried to hamper us by not letting us torture the sumbitches”. Having lived through the same period, my interpretation would be rather different.
    Just because you swallowed the right wing propaganda doesn’t make you right. I’m sure plenty of people fled the South when Saigon fell, every regime has those that stand to lose from its defeat – even Libya has those eager to flee now Gadaffi has gone. Who do I blame for the “loss” of South Vietnam? The corrupt political elites of the South who weren’t interested in democracy or the good of their own people – and the American state that first supported them, then backed a coup and tried to use little more than brute force to maintain an unpopular, failed government.
    It’s sad that you are so deluded, so conceited and so angry. I feel sorry for you.

  25. Just because you claim to have fought in Iraq/Afghan (I forget which) does not make you an expert, either. I’m sure not all of your mates think in lock-step with you. And just because you’ve swallowed the left-wing drivel that the South V were corrupt and unwilling to fight and they deserved to lose to those heroic fucking communists from the North doesn’t make it so, either.

    And you failed to distinguish exactly why the fuck we should have fought and died for merry old England in WWII, when we cut and run and cut off ALL FUCKING SUPPORT to our previous allies, the SV, 20 years later. Again, you would be Sprechen zie Deutch but for our support in WWII, if we had treated you like we did the S Vietnamese when we promised and them aid and then cut them off years later, you ignorant fuck. Easy, sooooo easy to sit back and say that it was the correct thing to do to cut off the aid to the South Vietnamese when you are sitting in a free (but worthless as fuck) country as you are. You pathetic worm.

  26. It’s ‘Sie’ by the way, not ‘zie’ – and ‘Deutsche’ rather than ‘Deutch’…

    You’re a bit odd for a supposedly intelligent legal mind. You’ve abandoned the original argument, unable to actually support your assertions. Which is progress at least. But instead you just talk nonsense. It’s laughable, really. What you say is random, pointless and made up.
    I don’t claim to be an expert – whereas you do, merely by virtue of having been alive at any given point.
    I’m sure some of my friends would disagree with me, so what? Do you live in a world where you refuse to have anything to do with someone who doesn’t profess the same beliefs as you?
    Did I say the South “deserved to lose to … heroic communists”? Nope. But I guess reading isn’t taught too well where you come from. What I said was that the Southern government was corrupt, undemocratic and did not have sufficient support from its people. American arms only postponed its demise and led to more misery for the people and polarised society further. You can’t argue with that, so you don’t. You scream and swear instead. You’ve yet to post any kind of argument explaining how America was actually winning and Southerners were flocking to support and fight for their state. All my original points still stand. You just like the “we’d have won if it wasn’t for the damn politicians” argument because it appeals to your warped sense of patriotism, the crazy “american exceptionalism” idea and the retarded right’s love affair with american arms. Your problem is you can’t distinguish fact from your absurd political dreams. You so desperately want to believe that the world is split into good and evil, that everything can fit into some easy narrative. It’s childish. The next logical step is to claim that the Iraqis actually wanted you occupying their country for years and treating them like shit. Do you not hear how stupid you sound?

    I didn’t “fail to distinguish” anything, because there was never any discussion about “why we should have fought … in WWII”. That whole second paragraph.. what on earth are you dribbling about? Have you been drinking? Because it makes very little sense. I can only conclude that you know practically nothing about history. Or much else for that matter. I’m not even really sure what sort of comparison you’re trying to make here, you might as well be saying “this pineapple is just like that hippopotamus”. My best guess is that you want to go back in time and prevent the USA going to war with Germany on the basis that you don’t like me very much because I have disturbed the weird fantasy world you live in?

    I really have to conclude that you just aren’t that bright. In fact, I shall go further and suggest that you are of well below average intellect, have no real grasp on how to form and pursue an argument, are incapable of critical thinking, lack the skills to express yourself and have to resort to profanity, believe in political ideology as if it were religion and you’re a shitty little racist and islamophobe. To top it all off you’re some kind of military wannabe. A never-was who likes to talk tough and bang on about “our troops” and act all patriotic like you have a clue what the world is actually like.

    That about sums you up, no? Law school in A-Mericuh must be pretty easy to get into nowadays…

    But do keep up the semi-literate rants, it’s not as if this page was ever really a serious forum for discussion anyway. They’ve become something of an occasion here – I like to call people in to read them so that we can have a good chuckle. I’m looking forward to see what insulting name you can think up next.

  27. I never claimed to be an expert, either. Those are your words. I said I was alive, and I didn’t need some wet behind the ears punk to tell what happened. You “learned” what happened from your socialist government. Get in line, seig heil boy.

    I jump around topics? I’m responding to what you bring up. You brought up the so-called history of Vietnam. You are the one that thinks the USA did the right thing when it abandoned them. I merely pointed out what an ignorant fuck you are, and how inappropriate it was for someone from England to make that argument. If we had done to England what you suggest was right for S Vietnam, you’d be German now. Or dead.

    Oh, so now your puny socialist brain blames the loss of South Vietnam on their corrupt politicians? Funny, they held off the NVC for two decades and never lost until the USA pulled all its troops, and then the Democrap controlled congress cut off ALL FUNDING and aid. If we had cut off aid to England you worthless fucks would have lost, just as the S Vietnamese did. You aren’t claiming that England’s politicians were corrupt, are you? Still, you are, indeed, a worthless, stupid fuck.

  28. I love how many Americans don’t actually know what Socialism really is. If the UK government is ‘socialist’ it would make yours somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan. Hmm, a socialist and a ‘seig heil boy’? Straight out of the batshit crazy mouth of Glenn Beck (“oh! it’s the Socialists! They’re all Nazis!).

    If only you did respond to what I bring up. Then perhaps we could have had a discussion about the laws of armed conflict. But perhaps you’re just smart enough to realise you were on a hiding to nothing with that ridiculous line of argument so you retreated into ‘safe’ territory.
    I brought up Vietnam and the Malay Emergency together in the context of making my point about use of violence and tying of political aims to military aims in counter insurgency. You know, grown ups use historical experience to maybe learn and get ideas about what to do today. I see now that you were totally unable to make the connection and follow through with the logic of the argument. Hell, you probably don’t even know where British Malaya was. Instead, you saw “Vietnam” and jumped right into ‘revisionist ultra-conservative mode’ and began the standard, pre-set defence of the war and assertion that America was, in fact, on the cusp of victory. Talk about missing the point. Of course, your rant doesn’t actually make that argument very well either. It’s just a version of “no! I’m right!” I’d love to hear how Diem actually was really popular amongst the citizens of the South and the communists didn’t control large swathes of the countryside. Of course, if that really was the case, I imagine America wouldn’t have backed the coup against him…
    The South didn’t exactly hold off the North for two decades now, did it? There were Americans there pretty much from the start. That’s why advisers turned into ground troops – the South was being beaten and you have absolutely no room to argue anything else.

    Of course, you like to put words into my mouth. I’ve never actually said America did the right thing by abandoning Vietnam. It’s much more complex than that, which I know you struggle with. The chance to do the ‘right’ thing was lost long before Nixon. But by the 1970’s it really was just the US military propping up a dysfunctional government that did not reflect the desires of its people. There’s no good way for that to end. Leave and watch the dysfunctional state collapse, or stay pretty much forever and enforce military stalemate. I assume you’d have preferred that. You could have had thousands more dead American soldiers to eulogise and hundreds of thousands more dead Vietnamese that you could ignore and, no doubt, insult as ‘gooks’.

    Saying that someone who is not American has no right to have an opinion on anything is pretty retarded. Just so you know.

    As you insist on trying to make some bizarre point about WWII, I suppose I shall address it. Not that there really is a point, as the two conflicts have basically nothing in common. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the UK wasn’t fighting against an insurgency amongst its own people, was it? If you think back to lessons at big boy’s school, you may remember that the French and British Empires were engaged in an old-fashioned inter-state conflict. There weren’t exactly hordes of National Socialist guerillas running around the fields of Kent and Sussex. So, whilst this war went on, the American government largely took the view that a German victory would not be good for US interests and supported the other side (of course, we shouldn’t forget the American Fascists either). You sent some stuff, some good some bad, and made bucket loads of cash (USA – only country to turn a profit off the second world war, yay!).
    You were also being challenged in the Pacific by Imperial Japan, a challenge that was likely to lead to conflict regardless of the European war. That conflict came in 1941 and you were involved in a Pacific war. Now, interestingly, you only became involved in the European war when Hitler rather foolishly declared war on you some days after Pearl Harbour in solidarity with his Japanese allies. So, it wasn’t really the American shining knight deciding to ride to the rescue. Not that I’m complaining, after all the terrible wars America has fought, it’s nice to be able to point to one that had a fairly decent aim.
    I mean, yeah, if you had somehow managed to make peace with Hitler whilst still continuing the war against Japan (although I’m not sure how, exactly), then the European war would have lasted a fair bit longer. The Soviets would still have won but would just have ended up capturing a good deal more of Europe. Maybe up to the French border, I don’t know. I’m not sure how that would have benefited the USA, but hey. And, of course, Britain would still have not been invaded. The threat of invasion being seen off in 1940 before America entered the war. So again, I don’t see what point you’re making or how it has any relevance to the foolishness of the Vietnam policy or the relevance of the Law of Armed Conflict to the current ‘war on terror’.
    So, you see, you don’t really have a point. You might as well say “if you didn’t support the Vietnam war then America will never get involved in another war ever again”. To be honest, I think a lot of people would quite like that.
    I’m now fully expecting a restating of the “how dare you criticise anything I say because Americans who were born long before me fought on the same side in a war with English people born before you” argument. But, sadly, not any more imaginative insults. I must admit your “worthless, stupid fuck” ending made me a little bit sad. I actually had a bet that you were going to use “cock sucking limey bastard” – I guess I gave you too much credit for originality.
    I’ve actually bookmarked your page – I like to use it to show people what a real, live American Redneck who has learned to use the internet looks like.

    Whilst I’m still enjoying your ranting, I am a little bored of having to teach basic history. I wonder if we’ll get past it in tomorrow’s exciting instalment of “Deeply insecure American Redneck mashes keyboard with rage and hopes to form some kind of coherent argument”?

  29. have to confess that I don’t even read most of your rants. You are an arrogant ignorant little prick who thinks he knows so much more than everybody else.

    South Vietnamese were fighting infiltrators from the north. Many of those in the south who fought were forced to by the north. The north came into villages and told them to fight for the north or be killed. Talk about an ignorant fuck. Your point was that such tactics don’t work, well they worked for the north. Hell i’d probably fight too if somebody said i’ll kill your wife and kids unless you join us. For the most part, we did not act that way, or when we did it was publicized and the perps were shamed or punished. The USA could have won; we just never allowed our troops to do it. We could have invaded them and bombed them into the stone age.

    It was liberals, those parasites in our land, who demonstrated and sided with our enemies who undermined the national will to win. really, go bore somebody else, fuckhead

  30. No, I only know so much more than you John, not everyone else.

    Yeah, “we could have invaded and won” – the retard’s answer to everything. Then those pesky communists would have seen the light, wouldn’t they? Just kill enough of them and give the rest a bottle of coke.
    It works so well for you doesn’t it, Invading other countries?
    Iraqis all love you Americans so very much…

    You don’t read most of my posts because you prefer to remain ignorant and simply can’t argue with me. My sincere sympathies to anyone unlucky enough to end up with you as their lawyer.

    I’ll leave you to climb back in your box with the other troglodytes.

    • Yeah, if only we had allowed Hitler to fuck you english fucks up. i’m thinking, hmmm,, no supplies from america. no need for escorts cross the atlantic. let you fucks endure the uboats on yer own. ‘k, the brits have their own backs. no normandy. no waiting for that loser fuck monty. good, god, we’d be sooooo mjuch better off.yeah, suuuuuuuuure the krauts and japs would invade the usa. chuckle. little fucks like you would be squirming around trying to blow the next dictator that arose in europe. but i’m not a socialist. i just love sucking dick and this guy’s dick is the most importrant dick that i can find….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s