Obama may allow Americans to be tried for war crimes in The Hague

I haven't heard anything about American soldiers and rape, but I know that rape of non-Muslim women by Muslim immigrants has been a severe problem in Europe.
And as far as killing civilians is concerned, thereligionofpeace.org tallies that since 911, there have been over 14,400 Islamic terror attacks.
On oppression, this site has had videos of the Iranian authorities shooting protestors from the rooftops.
Bombings of civilians are daily occurrences in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. That's because Islam is a violent, supremacist ideology that lacks any concept of humanity, and excuses enslaving or killing anyone deemed an unbeliever.

How many civilians did the US military kill during the Vietnam War alone, without counting the numerous other US "interventions"? The jihadis are certainly dedicated psychopaths,however they're not really in the race,when the task is to terminate innocent lives efficiently, and in huge numbers, Americans are world champions. Bravo!

Do the crime, do the time.

Mudfish you need fresh water in your bowl.

You can lay that dog poop at the feet of any country, or raiding despot who has ever been at war, or invaded someone...For sheer numbers try Genghis Khan or Pol Pot, China
or Russia, Hitler or Mahound...and many more...

Civilians get killed and injured in war...The US is not exempt...But it is certainly not alone...and neither is it the champion...

If Islamic terrorism, jihadism, is a 'crime'... then you need to put jihad on trial...If you put jihad on trial, you have to put Islam on trial...If you wish to protect Islam from disclosure and discovery in open court, (selected verses from the Quran and Hadith as evidence), You are going to have to call it something other than jihad or a 'crime'...That's where 'insanity' comes in...These people are just 'snapping'...SSS...Sudden Snap Syndrome...Many of them have toothaches (that comes from the enlightened Jerry Rivers, on Fox)...They are fine one minute, then suddenly go berserk...Look for the 'insanity' defense to be used a lot.
The SSS is alive and well in Islam because Allah wills it...or because of a toothache...

Apparently that was written by 'CFR' member Dean Acheson, with a little help from his friends...

Did not know about this document, duh_swami, so thanks to you (and to poetcomic1 for the link) for mentioning it. Reading through it I was struck first and foremost by the naivety of it all (as much, if not more so, than the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact which renounced war as a feature of national policy). I also couldn't help but reflect on the fact that JFK was quite the hawk (he spent more on defense as a percentage of the federal budget than did Reagan) and your mention of Acheson as a possible author of this document also struck me as interesting considering that he too was very hawkish in his early years at the State Department, while Secretary of State (1949-1953) under Truman and even after he left office (though it should be noted that Acheson has been blamed, fairly or unfairly, for his remark in January of 1950 that the Korean peninsula was not in America's defense perimeter, which apparently functioned as an encouragement for Kim Il-sung to invade South Korea a half year later).

I have to wonder if this document was drawn up by realistic men who knew its goals would never be implemented. Just political rhetoric to look like the peace-loving side in the Cold War. Don't know. Sure hope so though.

If mankind does have any chance of ending war I have long thought the only practical way it could be done is through spreading democracy (real democracy, not sham democracy). No two fully free democratic nations have gone to war with one another over the past century (Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary had democratic elements but were still authoritarian states to some extent). In every conflict over the last hundred years at least one of the two sides has not been fully democratically composed. Democracies exhibit an overwhelming tendency to work out their problems diplomatically. No guarantee here but still the track record is quite impressive. Of course, there's nothing democratic in the true sense of the word about Islam. So to the extent that any Islamic country has democratic elements, it is precisely in inverse relationship to just how Islamic that country is. Islam and freedom, as you and so many others here who post at JW know only too well, are totally incompatible.

When did I claim that the Americans were the only people to commit war crimes? The point was, that all military organizations produce war criminals,even democracies. The US military should not be immune from prosecution in a properly constituted international court,to refuse to allow this is just hubris. I'll agree with you on one point, the Japanese were as barbarous as the Nazis,however they present themselves as victims of Allied agression and many people in the West are remarkably ignorant of Japanese atrocities-but Asians are not,particularly the Chinese.

When did I claim that the Americans were the only people to commit war crimes? The point was, that all military organizations produce war criminals,even democracies. The US military should not be immune from prosecution in a properly constituted international court,to refuse to allow this is just hubris. I'll agree with you on one point, the Japanese were as barbarous as the Nazis,however they present themselves as victims of Allied agression and many people in the West are remarkably ignorant of Japanese atrocities-but Asians are not,particularly the Chinese.

"The US is a unique government because it is the citizens who are sovereigns" Eh? You seem to be implying that only the US is a democracy.Democracy is not an American invention and is certainly not unique to the US which,by the way, was rather slow in adopting some democratic practices such as the abolition of slavery or votes for women. American democracy might be superior to other systems in some aspects, however the difference is a matter of degree(or opinion) it is not absolute.

"throw him to the wolves" again this is a prejudicial statement which implies the inferiority of foreign judicial systems,where's your evidence for that statement.

"The US is a unique government because it is the citizens who are sovereigns" Eh? You seem to be implying that only the US is a democracy.Democracy is not an American invention and is certainly not unique to the US which,by the way, was rather slow in adopting some democratic practices such as the abolition of slavery or votes for women. American democracy might be superior to other systems in some aspects, however the difference is a matter of degree(or opinion) it is not absolute.

"throw him to the wolves" again this is a prejudicial statement which implies the inferiority of foreign judicial systems,where's your evidence for that statement.

You err on two points. Not many polities made slavery illegal before the US did with the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (1865). The British Empire did, to its credit, but only by some thirty years. Most all the world still kept slavery legal, several countries well into the twentieth century (e.g., Saudi Arabia only abandoned slavery in 1962) after America abolished it after a vicious civil war which was fought in part to end slavery. Moreover, the first stand against slavery that we know of comes from a Philadelphia Quaker community in the late seventeeth century. You see, until a mere three hundred years ago or so, nowhere on earth was slavery considered something which should not exist (even Jesus did not speak against it).

Your second error is about the franchise for women. Actually, several Western states, such as Wyoming and Utah, in the late nineteenth century gave women the right to vote before virtually any political entity in the world did. America finally got around to making the female franchise a national phenomenon with the Nineteenth Amendment, which went into effect in 1920, just fifteen years after Norway became the first nation to give women the right to vote throughout an entire country. Faulting America here because it only nationalizedd the women's vote a mere fifteen years after the first country did (and keep in mind what I mentioned above and that is that several American states anticipated any nation in this regard) resonates with a "kick-America first" mentality.

"err on two points",where is the error? The point in discussion was claims to US primacy in democratic innovation,this has been refuted by your own admission that the British abolished slavery earlier.I don't dispute the historical facts you stated,however they're irrelevant.

No,your second error is historical,New Zealand is the first polity to give women the vote(in 1893) and Australia,nationally, in 1902 and some colonies in Australia allowed female suffrage in the 19th century also,you should look beyond the Atlantic world.Where did you obtain your information? I think that's QED to my argument re American attitudes and ignorance.

As to your accusations of a "kick-America first mentality",I'll say that the USA is one of the great achievements of Western Civilization,however we non- Americans often get irritated at America's "everything- invented-in-the-US-first" mentality,I've just demonstrated the reason for this.

Your initial cotention, which I replied to, was that America "was rather slow in adopting some democratic practices such as the abolition of slavery or votes for women." I disagreed with this assessment and still do. Being slow in doing something doesn't mean that unless your first you're slow. It's not just an either/or and that's why I noted the ending of slavery throughout the British Empire in the early 1830s. Just because several polities ended slavery before America did, doesn't add up to America being "rather slow" in this area. And don't forget we're talking about a matter of only a few decades, hardly any amount of time compared to all the millennia during which slavery existed.

As for the women's franchise, I was conscious that New Zealand gave women the right to vote in the 1890s but when it did so it was not yet an independent nation and would not become so until 1907 (some would say not until 1947 when it unambiguously asserted that it would control its own foreign affairs). I was confining my assessment to independent countries when I wrote what I did above, though I should have made that clear. After writing my first communication to you (from memory) I checked up on Norway and found that it didn't give women the right to vote in 1905, as I had thought, but in 1913. As for Australia, yes, in 1902 it gave white women the right to vote but not all women and that's why I didn't mention it.

I don't mean to be picky but your averring that America was "rather slow" in the matters of abolishment of slavery and giving women the right to vote just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I certainly am conscious that other cultures did things before Ameica. Very much so in fact. I'm not saying that America is always first or anything like that, but I just felt I had to set the historical record straight. I do, by the way, regularly look beyond the Atlantic world for a more complete understanding of mankind.

You've made some reasonable points and we could go on nit- picking forever,so I'll make this my final post.I anticipated your comments re NZ not being independent,however I think they're legalistic and don't accept the political realities,there was no way the British could have coerced their "self-governing dominions",they had learned their lesson after that unpleasant experience with their former colonists in America,so from 1907(or 1893), NZ was as independent as it chose to be.
I think Australia's exclusion of its idigenous poulation was a national disgrace,but,as far as I understand,many African-Americans were de facto excluded from the vote,until the 1960s,in some southern US states.Nobody's perfect.
I don't want to overstate my argument,as an Australian I know practically nothing about Belgium or Canada, distant small nations from my perspective,however I know they're First World countries and I accept the notion that they might have superior institutions that Australians could learn from.This is in contrast to the ignorant opinions, so often stated on this site,by Americans,of US superiority in all social and political institutions. Given the immense power of the USA,this combination of ignorance and arrogance is extremely dangerous if it influences foreign policy,ask people in the ME.I've no idea who Dennis Prager is,however,if the quote is accurate, he's deluded and hubristic,America is often hated for,not lies,but the truth.I distinguish America,the society,the Great Democracy and its remarkable material and social achievements from its extremely destructive, ill-informed and militaristic "foreign policy".

You've made some reasonable points and we could go on nit- picking forever,so I'll make this my final post.I anticipated your comments re NZ not being independent,however I think they're legalistic and don't accept the political realities,there was no way the British could have coerced their "self-governing dominions",they had learned their lesson after that unpleasant experience with their former colonists in America,so from 1907(or 1893), NZ was as independent as it chose to be.
I think Australia's exclusion of its idigenous poulation was a national disgrace,but,as far as I understand,many African-Americans were de facto excluded from the vote,until the 1960s,in some southern US states.Nobody's perfect.
I don't want to overstate my argument,as an Australian I know practically nothing about Belgium or Canada, distant small nations from my perspective,however I know they're First World countries and I accept the notion that they might have superior institutions that Australians could learn from.This is in contrast to the ignorant opinions, so often stated on this site,by Americans,of US superiority in all social and political institutions. Given the immense power of the USA,this combination of ignorance and arrogance is extremely dangerous if it influences foreign policy,ask people in the ME.I've no idea who Dennis Prager is,however,if the quote is accurate, he's deluded and hubristic,America is often hated for,not lies,but the truth.I distinguish America,the society,the Great Democracy and its remarkable material and social achievements from its extremely destructive, ill-informed and militaristic "foreign policy".

America's foreign policy, which you so deride, has been in the forefront ordinarily in the defense of freedom. Whether it be the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, the creation of NATO, stopping aggression in 1950 in the Korean penisula, the Eisenhower Doctrine, America's involvement in Vietnam to prevent monsters from taking over that area (N.B., the real killing in Southeast Asia began AFTER America left there in 1975), the Reagan defense policies (which, by the admission of ex-Soviets themselves, like Alexander Bessmertnykh, were extremely detrimental to the survival of a terrible state, i.e., U.S.S.R, respecting which matter Bessmertnykh said "Ronald Reagan's defense spending and strategic defense initiatives accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union"), Bush 41's not letting naked aggression in Kuwait stand unchallenged in 1990-1991 or Bush 43's giving Iraqis their only shot at freedom and prosperity when, in 2003, he took down one of the most hideous regimes of the modern era (which all the toadies in the Western world were prepared to do absoluteley nothing to end), America has stood as the beacon of liberty, yes through its foreign and defense policy approaches in preserving, protecting, defending and expanding freedom to the rest of the world in a way no other polity that has ever existed can remotely match.

Has America made mistakes in foreign policy? You betcha'. But as President Kennedy observed invoking Teddy Roosevelt, the credit belongs to the man in the arena taking on the bull, whether he succeeds or fails, and not to the passive types sitting in the stadium. No polity in history has been in the arena more times and in more ways than has America and most of the time it has succeeded in its quests. Nonetheless, you fault America far more than you praise her. Such approbation as yours is not worth much.

One last point, if you don't know who Dennis Prager is I suggest you go to his website, www.dennisprager.com. You will learn much if you're capable of diligence. And his assessment that America is chiefly hated because lies are told about her couldn't be more on the mark if one tried. You haven't tried. Not even close. I know you won't credit this, but you're largely clueless about the nation Winston Chuchill affectionately called "The Great Republic." Done here.

I have to say something because your comments were so xenophobic,of course I don't know anything about the US internal politics,nor am I interested,my only interest is the effects of US foreign policy on defencless foreigners and lately it has been brutal,unlike in the first part of the 20th century.
Ponder this, the devestation, loss of life and destabilisation inflicted by US in Indo China could be the main cause of the later tragedy.Huge casulaties were caused by the US,up to a million deaths during the War, to what end,the majority of the Vietnamese wanted to be rid of the US and its militarism,otherwise the outcome of the war would have been different.
I'm not convinced as to the lofty motives of US intervention in Iraq,during the 1980s Saddam was regarded as a useful weapon against Iran,and his regime was just as oppressive then as in 2003.There were,and still are equally murderous governments in the world,why Iraq and not others, the answer is of course, oil.Sometimes America's noble sentiments are simply a smokescreen for naked greed and strategic advantage,don't be so thin skinned and get used to criticism,when this is pointed out.

"..giving Iraqis their only shot at freedom and prosperity",this is grotesque,what of the 500,000 Iraqi deaths since Bush Senior's intervention,you implicitly count their lives as valueless in America's "democracy building program".Have you heard this description
of another superpower,long ago,"they make a desolation and call it 'peace'". Your analysis of US foreign policy is extremely naive,you are indeed clueless about the rest of the world.

Churchill was pro-US because he knew it was the only power capable of saving Britain from the Nazis.

Your ignorance is astouning and your anti-Americanism is pathetic. I suspected as much but your last communication confirmed my worst suspicions. Never mind that you didn't acknowledge a single achievement by American foreign policy which I mentioned above (e.g., the Marshall Plan), you had to weigh in with bogus charges and bogus numbers about America in Vietnam and Iraq.

The civilians killed by the Communists in Vietnam (whether by the NVA or Viet Cong) dwarf any rare rogue killings by American soldiers. You know this or should know it. After the Tet Offensive in early 1968, Americans uncovered mass graves of Vietnamese civilians in places like Hue, courtesy of the enemy. As for the US military causing casualties in Vietnam, Paul Johnson, an Englishman, observed in his great work, Modern Times, that "Unlike the Americans, the North Vietnamese leaders never once wavered in their determination to secure their political aim---total domination of the entire country----at any cost. They do not seem to have been influenced in the smallest degree by the casualaties their subjects suffered or inflicted. There was thus a bitter irony in the accusations of genocide hurled at the Americans. An examination of classified material in the Pentagon archives revealed that all the charges made against US forces at the 1967 Stockholm 'International War Crimes tribunal' were baseless."

As for Iraq, almost all the civilian casualties there can be laid at the feet of Saddam Hussein while still in power or on the Islamic terrorists after his fall who deliberately went out of their wasy to insure as many civilian casualties as possible. The American military, by contrast, goes out of its way, as does the IDF in Israel, to limit civilian deaths. Folks like you were prepared to do absolutely nothing to stop Saddam Hussein filling up mass graves and having torture and rape rooms aplenty. America put a stop to this tyrant's malevolencies and you, predictably, blame America for it. Pathetic. You have hauled out most every tread-worn and bogus criticism of American foreign and defense policy there is and then you have the gall to call me xenophobic because I won't accept your cheap and uninformed attacks on America. Done here.