Gen. Lance Smith gave this May's commencement speech to Virginia Tech graduates as a man proud of his country, "a unique force for good in the world," having "done more to free people from tyranny and poverty than any other nation on earth."
Now, "Iraq is rid of a vicious dictator and his sons," although due to "media bias" the public is unaware of "any of the good things we [are] doing in Iraq," such as building "new schools." It is true that "we are aggressive actors on the world stage" but "in Asia we have been the foundation of peace and stability for 60 years."
To protect this "unique" freedom, we must be mindful of the encroaching "tyranny of the majority" that will institute socialism, which "destroys true democracy and individual liberty." We must not confuse "real socialism" with European socialism, which provides "higher levels of welfare spending to maintain peace and quiet in the lower classes."
Let's examine his claims.
Nuremberg Principle VI defines "war crimes" in part as "wanton destruction of cities ... or devastation not justified by military necessity." In "War Without End," Michael Schwartz describes the November 2004 invasion of Fallujah: "U.S. forces surrounded the city and barred entry to everyone. Even humanitarian and medical personnel were not allowed to enter for the next two months. The commanders of the siege then invited all women, children and older men to leave through a few of (the) heavily guarded checkpoints. All fighting-age men were prohibited from exiting ... Civilians who stayed in the city during the fighting, estimated to be about 50,000 of the 250,000 residents, found themselves in a kill-anything-that-moves free-fire zone." The city was destroyed, has not been rebuilt and probably will not recover in our generation. This great victory was mimicked in Baiji and Ramadi, cities of 200,000 and 500,000, respectively. Does Smith think we should bomb Richmond in order to "free people from tyranny and poverty"?
There are no bounds to "the good things we (are) doing in Iraq," according to Smith, that cannot possibly be "justified by military necessity," according to the Nuremberg Principles. The entire war is unjustified by military necessity and therefore is a continuing series of war crimes.
Chapter I of the United Nations Charter specifically condemns wars of "aggression," as does Nuremberg Principle VI. Thus, the Iraq War is a violation of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, created to prevent the crimes characteristic of fascist Germany and Japan.
Smith noted Saddam Hussein was a "vicious dictator." What made him vicious? He was executed for ordering the killings of 148 civilians in 1982, and perpetrated other crimes that killed tens of thousands.
The 1990s U.S.-led U.N. sanctions killed ("free(d)") more than one million, according to UNICEF. If we accept Smith's logic, we should urge that the last four "vicious" U.S. presidents be hanged.
Leave a comment 17 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
War crimes are sweet. You should try them if you ever get the chance.
Reply to this Top
Why is Burke writing for the CT when he is clearly a 18-star general in the GI Joes since he was at all of these events to know what happened. The idea of these being "war crimes" is simply a poorly constructed opinion. Burke basically took a couple of "rules" and "definitions" and skewed them to fit his argument.
Reply to this Top
must take a lot of brasso to clean up them 18 stars. i don't know if it was covered on the news back here in the states but that isn't what happened in fallujah. but reading somebody elses account in a book and taking it as gospel works too. and Burke never addresses the "military necessity" of what happened as part of his war crime accusation. i guess the book he read didn't go over that to make up Burke's mind for him
Reply to this Top
Reading this reminded me of that part in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when they were trying to reason whether or not the woman was a witch. Burke is the dude that says "Because they're made of wood" when asked why witches burn.
Reply to this Top
It's so great to come back to school and find poorly constructed arguments such as this. I mean, don't get me wrong, I understand that it's the cool thing to do nowadays to attack the ones protecting the country, but please try a little harder to construct a coherent argument before you put 'war crimes' in your headline.
Reply to this Top
Lets Examine your claims Burke... you actually have no substantial claims. Your article is purely opinions with slices of quotes that are misused. You never make logical arguments that connect your opinions to the facts/quotes. 1) You never support your leftist opinions on 'unnecessary war' when the rebuttal is easily made (making WMDs, using WMDs, Condemnation by the UN itself, countless threats, financial support of terrorist networks, etc.). I just gave topics that refute your claims of 'aggression' or 'unnecessary'. 2) You need a lesson in political science; in Asia North Korea and China have the regimes most resembling dictatorships not South Korea or Japan. 3) I am glad you care more about the ‘defenseless citizens’ lost in guerilla warfare instead of the men and women fighting for this country. 4) You butchered Tocqueville and the quotes used are taken out of context in the manner you use them. Tocqueville warned against the tyranny of the mob (Socialism, Communism and its forms) and as for the quote referenced; Tocqueville was using those words to compare monarchies to democracies. The point you missed that I believe Smith was addressing when mentioning Stalinism is that this country needs to be wiry of the extreme left democracies (the forms of Communism and Socialism).
Reply to this Top
I request that Burke no longer uses the word "therefore" unless he is quoting somebody else.
Reply to this Top
Burke does a disservice to the word "therefore" every time he draws a conclusion. I'll help you out with another great conclusion here Burke...every time you pay your taxes you fund our murderous military. Therefore all taxpayers are war criminals!
Reply to this Top
Burke does a disservice to the word "therefore" every time he draws a conclusion. I'll help you out with another great conclusion here Burke...every time you pay your taxes you fund our murderous military. Therefore all taxpayers are war criminals!
Reply to this Top
I don't understand the leap that Burke takes when he says "If we accepts Smith's logic" Is he saying that if Saddam was tried and executed in his own country for his role in killing Iraqis, we should also execute all the world leaders in the UN that voted for the sanctions? Or that there should be a trial of all presidents that voted for the sanctions? I don't get it.
Reply to this Top
To Bradford S., the fact that the Iraq War was unnecessary is hardly a leftist opinion. 1. As is well known, the WMD pretext for the invasion was false, as is any connection with al Qaeda ('terrorism'). 2. You misunderstood my contention, for I did not write that South Korea and Japan were the most dictatorial regimes in Asia. 3. Indeed, I wish that no American soldiers died in Vietnam or Iraq and that no Vietnamese or Iraqi civilians were killed. Speaking out against killing civilians is not the same as wishing for US troops to be hurt, and conflating the two is only a way to quell dissent. If you seriously wanted US troops to be out of harm's way, then you would argue for immediate withdrawal. 4. De Tocqueville was warning against majority rule, e.g., democracy. You mention this in your closing argument. To Finally, it is true that our taxes go to support murder. You are correct in pointing out my own hypocrisy. To the last Anonymous, I was arguing that since presumably Smith supports trying and executing leaders who kill innocent Iraqis, that would include trials within the American government. On a personal note, I do not support the death penalty, even for mass murderers. Thanks again for the comments.
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for the generally level-headed comments regarding my article. As you may anticipate, I disagree with your counterarguments. To Adam, the definition of war crimes used at Nuremberg is very important and should be taken seriously. To Anonymous #1, I wasn't at Fallujah. But why should I take your blog comment any more seriously than I take Schwartz' book that details the battle? I don't comprehend the Monty Python argument. I also don't understand what Hokie's objection is, except to the fact that I pointed out that our country is engaged in atrocities, which were supported by our commencement speaker.
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for the generally level-headed comments regarding my article. As you may anticipate, I disagree with your counterarguments. To Adam, the definition of war crimes used at Nuremberg is very important and should be taken seriously. To Anonymous #1, I wasn't at Fallujah. But why should I take your blog comment any more seriously than I take Schwartz' book that details the battle? I don't comprehend the Monty Python argument. I also don't understand what Hokie's objection is, except to the fact that I pointed out that our country is engaged in atrocities, which were supported by our commencement speaker.
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for the generally level-headed comments regarding my article. As you may anticipate, I disagree with your counterarguments. To Adam, the definition of war crimes used at Nuremberg is very important and should be taken seriously. To Anonymous #1, I wasn't at Fallujah. But why should I take your blog comment any more seriously than I take Schwartz' book that details the battle? I don't comprehend the Monty Python argument. I also don't understand what Hokie's objection is, except to the fact that I pointed out that our country is engaged in atrocities, which were supported by our commencement speaker.
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for the generally level-headed comments regarding my article. As you may anticipate, I disagree with your counterarguments. To Adam, the definition of war crimes used at Nuremberg is very important and should be taken seriously. To Anonymous #1, I wasn't at Fallujah. But why should I take your blog comment any more seriously than I take Schwartz' book that details the battle? I don't comprehend the Monty Python argument. I also don't understand what Hokie's objection is, except to the fact that I pointed out that our country is engaged in atrocities, which were supported by our commencement speaker.
Reply to this Top
Excellent point Burke. I agree that the definition of war crimes is very important and should be taken seriously. Maybe you should try exercising such due consideration instead irresponsibly tossing around a buzz word for your own satisfaction.
Reply to this Top
Most image forensics are done by a method called "copy and paste", which means part of the image is copied from another part of it. A site named <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> can detect such kind of image forgery very well. It identifies the forgery by detecting repetitions in the digital bits that comprise the imageeven if those repetitions are too subtle for the eye to detect or damaged by image compressions like JPEG.
Reply to this Top