Do Americans have the stomach to admit to war crimes?

[Check12]

Does the American public have the guts to admit to the world that our leaders are responsible for war crimes in Iraq?
Will history view GWB and Dick Cheney as war criminals?

I think the next couple years are going provide enough information on this corrupt regime to shame even the most rabid of wingnuts.

I am very sad for our country.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Sure we'll admit to war crimes.

We'll even have nice little show trials to convict a few NCOs and a lieutenant or two, just to show we're serious about it.

[Hardrada]

2. They are not my leaders!

I do recognize them as war criminals though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Hmmph, there are still Japanese who won't admit to war crimes

A book I translated mentions a Japanese soldier who did admit to war crimes and got death threats from his old army buddies.

It would be wrenching and traumatic for average Americans to admit that their leaders are guilty of war crimes, because all our lives, we've been taught not just that we have a proud history (schoolchildren in every country are taught that), but that we are a force for everything that is good and decent in the world.

You can't read recent history and still maintain that belief, but the general public doesn't read recent history, so they're still caught up in their elementary school patriotism.

If the Abu Graib photos (or the incident during the 1991 Gulf War when U.S. forces bombed Iraqis fleeing Kuwait and then brought in bulldozers to bury them--some still alive-- in mass graves) didn't trigger a national sense of outrage and revulsion, I don't know what would.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Some will not. The die hards. I know this country is guilty.

[Greyhound]

5. Very few have the courage to open their eyes, even a little, for that

would expose the lies that we must maintain to keep "our way of life" going. Once a person admits such a truth, the whole structure collapses.

History, at least the history books that we will see and teach here, will never mention the crimes committed in our names, just as they have hidden, or at most twisted to excuse as necessitous, the plethora of other atrocities we have engaged in.

[Selatius]

6. The German and Japanese experience seem to suggest NO.

One of the biggest factors at the end of the last world war over the war crimes trials was the fact that the victor, in essence, held decision-making power over whether to convict senior officers and political leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

I don't see that happening with Iraq unless there was a victor in a position to dictate to the US over whether there should be a trial. Of course, this is my own opinion. I could easily be mistaken here.

[elocs]

7. No, I do not see that ever happening. Reality check. n/t

[L. Coyote]

8. Do they have the checkbook to spring for liability of illegal war?? n/t

[gratuitous]

9. No.

This has been another edition of short answers to obvious questions.

The longer answer is "No way in hell." The secular religion of the United States is militarism. You can make fun of or criticize Muslims, Christians, blacks, gays, fat people, Southerners, Northerners, or just about any other group you care to name. There might be a minor discussion about insensitivity, but the universal defense of "Hey, it's just a joke, lighten up" will almost always end the discussion. One person might think the other is a jerk, but it will rarely lead to fisticuffs.

But make fun of or criticize the military and militarism? You will have a fight on your hands. Suggest that our military is perpetrating war crimes or even put out the evidence that our military is engaging in war crimes (like firing on civilian targets or carrying out blanket reprisals), and you'd better be prepared for the fight. Say that the billions we spend on defense every year is mostly a waste and would be better spent elsewhere, and it's shock and awe time.

I, too, am very sad for our country. And it will be a much better day for us and the world when our schools have all the money they need and all Americans have access to health care and our nation's great wealth is rendered in service to the people who generate that wealth rather than funneled to a few for the detriment of many. But at this time, we have willfully chosen to build bombs and tanks and fighter jets we don't need, and support a standing military force, rather than feed our own people. History teaches us that nations making that unfortunate choice tend to peter out, even as they build up their "defenses" while neglecting the common weal.

[MasterDarkNinja]

10. Look at how history views Lincoln and Jackson, they broke the law to

Lincoln violated Habeas Corpus (mostly in Maryland) to keep the state from voting to succeed from the union, and illegally threw a lot of people in jail. I think he even threw in a number of people who didn't work for the government to. Because it was in the middle of a war and the North was screwed if D.C. was thrown in the middle of southern terrority Lincoln got away with it, and the supreme court overturned what he did after Lincoln was already dead and the war over. Despite how popular Lincoln is today among people he actually wasn't too popular when he was alive, and it looked for a while that he was going to lose the reelection in 1864, until the North got some big victories that helped him win relection. (I took a history course about the Civil War a few years ago, so that's how I know all of this).

Andrew Jackson also blatently violated the law. He was pushing the Indians off of their land so the Indians went to court to fight it, got their case brought all the way up to the supreme court. The supreme court ruled in the Indian's favor, that Jackson and the rest of America had no right to force the Indians off of their land. Jackson however said "John Marshall (the chief justice of the supreme court then) has made his decision, now let him enforce it". For that Jackson could and should have been impeached and convicted, but Jackson was popular, and Americans wanted the land the Indians were living on.

So the short answer to your question of will history view Bush as a war criminal, probably not unless he were impeached (therefore forcing historians to look at if Bush deserved to be convicted and kicked out or not). :(

[4bucksagallon]

11. If you even broach the subject you will be subjected to swift boating .........

I argued with the "not so swift boaters" a few years ago and found it useless. They wanted names, dates, units, etc. While my memories from Nam are fading I am up against it when I try to remember names etc. seems most of us in Nam had nicknames which was how we addressed one another. I never wanted to name names anyway but just to get across to these asses that it was common, yes common, for american troops to commit crimes outside the geneva convention. I know that will come as a shock, or maybe not, to most but it is the truth.