The true face of Iraqi Freedom

[Ratty Sr.]

Human Rights Watch has collected and published accounts of torture of detained Iraqis at an American base near Falluja. Several US officers testify that Iraqi detainees were routinely subjected to various forms of physical and psychic abuse by members of the US Army 82nd Airborne Division. These forms of torture included:

- savagely beating and mutilating detainees with baseball bats and other objects
- exposing detainees' skin and eyes to harmful chemical agens
- depriving detainees of food and water
- depriving detainees of sleep

Soldiers tortured prisoners as part of interrogation process, with consent or even flat-out encouragement of their superiors. A number of prisoners have allegedly succumbed to their wounds after excessive abuse and died. Cruelty and barbarism of American troops didn't end there, however - they regarded physically abusing Iraqi people as a sport, often visiting the prison camp for fun and relaxation. Local Iraqi people allegedly named the troops "homicidal maniacs", a nickname these savage monsters embraced and wore with pride.

A group of junior officers began to question the cruelties that took place daily at their base and brought up the matter with their superiors, who shrugged them off and advised them to "consider their careers" and not pursue the matter further. An officer, who was supposed to meet with Senate staff and speak with them about the tortures, wasn't permitted to leave the base. Another officer stated that US soldiers were never briefed on the Geneva Conventions and didn't really have an idea what they were about.

More on that here.

P.S. Before anyone starts questioning these allegations or even simply expressing shock and disbelief, I would just like to establish one thing - there is nothing even remotely dubious or surprising about this. In fact, it's a wonder other such incidents didn't become public knowledge yet, as it is beyond doubt such treatment of prisoners isn't isolated, but a commonplace and state-condoned modus operandi of American soldiers. When the United States President himself publicly proclaimed that Geneva Conventions didn't apply to detainees captured by US troops, it became very much obvious that American armed forces have absolutely no intention of protecting anyone's freedom or human rights. Quite the contrary, complete disregard of human life and suppression of even the most basic civil liberties form one of the basic premises of the American war on terror and fighting terror amounts to merely replacing it with something equally brutal. That, my friends, is the true face of Iraqi "Freedom".

 

[welsh]

Yes, and someone up on the chain of command, or the legion of Bush supporters will probably say that this is just a local problem and the commander-in-chief didn't know about it (plausible deniability).

Looks like the torture standards continue to be relaxed.

It's kind of hard to support on Bush's vision of the US being a beacon of hope, of being blessed by God, and being the leader in human rights, when it is willing to condone if not support the use of torture.

There is little to be proud of in America when we commit these crimes.

 

[John Uskglass]

Sorry, but I've basically stopped listening to this stuff thanks to Amcrazy International.

But the Geneva Convention does not apply to domestic terrorists, IIRC.

 

[welsh]

No, but the rules of humanitarian law still outlaw torture.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

But the Geneva Convention does not apply to domestic terrorists, IIRC.

So, in your opinion torturing people is okay? Remember, we are talking about suspected terrorists. *Suspected*.

 

[John Uskglass]

So, in your opinion torturing people is okay? Remember, we are talking about suspected terrorists. *Suspected*.

Depends. If its the entire family of a *suspected* terrorist, no, that's Saddam-esque. If it's a guy who bombed a group of Shi'ite worshipers coming out on Friday, and it can prevent further bombings, I don't have much of a problem with it.

Humanitarianism and the like is nice, really, and in almost every situation I'd be on the same page, but the notion that one can at least *attempt* to regain or just flat out gain stability in a place like Iraq without some dirty tactics is at best naiive and at worst a one way road to chaos and failure.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Humanitarianism and the like is nice, really, and in almost every situation I'd be on the same page, but the notion that one can at least *attempt* to regain or just flat out gain stability in a place like Iraq without some dirty tactics is at best naiive and at worst a one way road to chaos and failure.

Apparently dirty tactics don't work, because US *is*, and has been since day one, on a one way road to chaos and failure. *ZING*

 

[Poe]

Taking bets that this response is deleted within the day? Anyone? Alrighty then, now that we have that out of the way, I guess we shall see how some fare against opposition.

Before I continue, I would advise consideration as to what people use for sources of information. Whenever someone creates a story, and then quotes themselves as a source, yet refuses to name anyone they have interviewed; I can not help but assume there is either something being fabricated or someone is only pushing the part of a story they wish to be heard. This simple objective reasoning, despite personal opinion or stance will save a lot of face, regardless of which camp a person is in; as both sides are more than a little guilty of doing it. Do you enjoy eating what is spun to you?

Now, you will forgive me if I do question these allegations and express shock and disbelief. As a former American Serviceman (a Marine, who served in Somalia) I will have to question the authenticity that this is a commonplace and state condoned modus operandi of the American serviceman… If you could find me a general order, military publication, or anything official condoning, directing, endorsing or even mentioning beating with bats as a form of interrogation I would find it most illuminating. For as far as “smoking” someone; it is not a pretty thing, but when taken in the context of the horrors of war it is so far down on the “barbarism” scale I could not with a straight face define it as “torture”, Can you?

Now, I am sure that the simple fact that these terrorists in Iraq do not meet any of the guidelines for being subject to the Geneva conventions is not lost on anyone here. These terrorists are not signing members, they have no official chain of command or accountable organizational hierarchy; nor do they abide by or even acknowledge these rules. No just court of international law would make such an assumption for even a moment, would you?

Were we to ignore all of that and allow them the rights afforded to signing members under the Geneva Convention do you realize what fate would await these gentlemen? A quick death by firing squad or a hanging, as a spy. The Geneva Convention is crystal clear about hiding amongst civilian populations. When you do so it makes the civilians a target and as that is something no one wants to have happen, even in the context of war, they go out of there way to make it very explicit and poignant as to what will happen to those that do so. So, would you sleep better if we ignored reality and treated them to the letter of the Geneva Convention and put them down on the spot without interrogation to determine guilt?

Now, without a doubt lines get crossed and mistakes made. Abu Garib is a common chant, and while I personally scoff at what occurred there as being torture I am forced to concede that they were out of line and if nothing else un-professional beyond forgiveness and deserve whatever sentencing they get and then some.

However, to be ashamed to be an American because of how we treat or enemies? Not me. I am proud to have served, and would do so again if they would have me. We administer first aid to wounded enemy combatants after engagements, that sir is a documented order. We feed, clothe, care for and afforded not only religious sanctity but also afford the basic respect of humanity, which too is an oft-repeated order. At the end of the day we treat our foes better than they treat us, or in many cases treat ourselves. The comparison of American compassion to our foes and the barbarism they practice can not even be weight on the same scale by anyone possessing any sense of reason, decency or perspective based in reality. This separation of humanity between our foes and we is the key difference; and why the opinions of so many that are misinformed and easily mislead hold such little weight on our conscience.

Now, as we are having a friendly discourse on points of view I would ask that you humor me a simple answer to a short question. What yardstick do you use to come to the determination that the actions in Iraq are a failure?

 

[Roshambo]

Beautiful, another who is ignorant as to the scope of the Geneva Conventions.

Taking bets that this response is deleted within the day? Anyone?

One strike, trolling. (Decision is unrelated to the topic. I thought I'd just clarify that point. As a practice, we do not delete stupidity - we archive it in The Vats.)

Now, I am sure that the simple fact that these terrorists in Iraq do not meet any of the guidelines for being subject to the Geneva conventions is not lost on anyone here.

It is amazing that such ignorance exists in those who supposedly have been in a place to have been accountable within such Conventions. It is this kind of ignorance in the hands that are supposedly trained to hold a gun that pisses me off because dishonorable people like you give those with a clue a bad name.

They still do have rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. You know, the one the current US administration has liked to piss over completely by defining everyone in Iraq as "towelhead", thusly trying to discount them as "human beings", which the Fourth Geneva Convention distinctly covers regardless of being found a legitimate POW or not.

These terrorists are not signing members, they have no official chain of command or accountable organizational hierarchy; nor do they abide by or even acknowledge these rules. No just court of international law would make such an assumption for even a moment, would you?

Maybe you should read up on the origins of the Red Cross/Geneva Conventions, the particulars of the Hague Convention, and then the protocols added to the Geneva Conventions that destroy such antiquidated loopholes that you and a few others seem to want to believe.

Were we to ignore all of that and allow them the rights afforded to signing members under the Geneva Convention do you realize what fate would await these gentlemen? A quick death by firing squad or a hanging, as a spy. The Geneva Convention is crystal clear about hiding amongst civilian populations.

Funny...the Geneva Conventions mention the civilians in particular, and what armed forces can do around/to/with civilian forces of occupied territory (Fourth Convention). Which the US hasn't bothered about. Good about you being in Somalia, but yet another needs reminding that Fallujah is not an item on the Taco Bell menu. Cutting off the water to a major populated area in order "to find terrorists", leaving thousands of civvies without water, is clearly in violation of GCIV. So is "Operation Wedding Party" that likewise violated rules of conflict in order to kill a mass of innocent civvies without bothering to do the slightest bit of recon.

"Hey, no uniforms - they are all unlawful combatants and should all be shot! Including the children decapitated by bullets as their family watched!"

So when the US commits war crimes against populations in this manner and scope, do you REALLY need an official presidential memo to get a clue that prisoners would be treated even worse off?

The US' actions are held to the Geneva Conventions because the US DID sign them, as is the intent and purpose of the Conventions. Therefore, the US is sworn to uphold them, throughout whatever action.

It isn't about an alliance and their rules like the UN or NATO, get that out of your heads, kids. The Conventions were a standard of ethical warfare determined to lessen the suffering of the wounded and innocent, International Humanitarian Law. So there is none of this "it's okay to do all this shit to people outside of the club" garbage, because that is purely founded upon ignorance and excusing associated war crimes under a really chickenshit mentality that "it's permissible to do this to them, so it's okay if they are treated that way". It bespeaks volumes about you as a soldier to condone what has been going on, and in fact excuse it because it doesn't fit into your ignorant view of what their rights should or shouldn't be.

The reality of the Geneva Conventions puts holes in that kind of warped thought process, and it's a dishonorable brand of soldiering to follow the rules only when you are absolutely held to them or to excuse such. Even "unlawful combatants" still retain rights under GCIV to be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

Again, actual court practice is another matter entirely, and the Allies were forgiven much for what they did in WWII, simply because they were the victor. A pity that one more US soldier has been proven clueless of the GCs, and I am not really surprised.

More on the US' violation of the Geneva Conventions here.

The funny thing is, no "competent tribunal" has yet been convened to declare the status of any enemy combatants, so therefore they are treated as a legal combatant until proven otherwise.

To curtail any further outbursts based upon criminal ignorance:

Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. [ICRC Commentary, Fourth Geneva Convention, p. 51 (1958)].

If members of a resistance movement who have fallen into enemy hands do not fulfill [the conditions for POW status] they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention [ICRC Commentary, Fourth Geneva Convention, p.50 (1958)].

Iraqi prisoners not entitled to POW status who are suspected of committing crimes must be tried in accordance with the due process rights and other requirements set forth in articles 64 through 77 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and in article 75 of Additional Protocol I. Such prisoners may not be removed from the occupied territory, and military commission regulations issued by the Department of Defense do not ensure the procedural rights guaranteed by these provisions*. Trials before such commissions, therefore, would violate the Geneva Conventions.

* - Now prove that you have some clue about how the Chain of Command works, and I will now show you the words you should be prepared to eat:

We administer first aid to wounded enemy combatants after engagements, that sir is a documented order. We feed, clothe, care for and afforded not only religious sanctity but also afford the basic respect of humanity, which too is an oft-repeated order. At the end of the day we treat our foes better than they treat us, or in many cases treat ourselves. The comparison of American compassion to our foes and the barbarism they practice can not even be weight on the same scale by anyone possessing any sense of reason, decency or perspective based in reality. This separation of humanity between our foes and we is the key difference; and why the opinions of so many that are misinformed and easily mislead hold such little weight on our conscience.

Really. Not in this campaign, apparently, where soldiers turn off water to cities in order for...you know, it's simpler just to call the US the Terrorists of Fallujah.

 

[TheWesDude]

actually they would all be considered civilians as they would all fail the 3 tests for POW status.

1) fails because the current armed forces are under "control" of the puppet government we have installed there.

2) fails because from what i understand they dont bear arms openly nor wear rank markers. thats one of the keys of being a terrorist, anonymity.

3) would fail because they certianly would have had adaquate time to form ranks and bear arms openly which would make 3 irrelevant and making it only 2 qualifiers for POW status currently.

so they would all have to be held under the civilian accords. which means we would have to ship lawyers there and judges and try them there rather than removing them from iraq.

and as far as i know the US did sign and agree to it but no US president has ever subjected a member of the US armed forces to international court. im not 100% sure about that whole iran-contra affair tho, was oliver north sent to an international trial or was it USSC?

simple fact is if the US held our own troops to the geneva accords, many of our troops would be found guilty of violations. anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant.

that being said, i think that non-extreme methods of torture of people who have or may have information that leads to others with intents to harm US troops or any installations is a good thing. what if we dont torture and find out information leading to the finding out who the next person is who is going to suicide-bomb a US installation or iraqi government installation that could potentially kill a lot of people? i think situations like this are a grey area.

 

[Bradylama]

No US soldier has been tried internationally for war crimes, because they operate on the basis that American institutions are capable of prosecuting them themselves. The reason we refuse to allow our soldiers to be tried internationally is because we have a huge sovereignty boner, which is hilarious, because if we honestly had such strong sentiments of sovereignty and nationalism we never would have been a party to such conventions as Geneva in the first place.

 

[Poe]

One strike, trolling. (Decision is unrelated to the topic. I thought I'd just clarify that point. As a practice, we do not delete stupidity - we archive it in The Vats.)

Well in that case you must have volumes held within there. I cannot quote verbatim all 159 articles of the August 12th 1949 Geneva convention, but I have read them before and understand there purpose. While the articles that go to great length to detail how one is to preserve and protect civilian populations in a time of war I thought we were referencing the treatment of the terrorists themselves, but apparently the point of this discourse has shifted.

Now, apparently your focus now is not how America and her allies are addressing the terrorists, but how we are actively targeting the civilian populations and violating the GC. Despite little factual reference for most of your points (unsubstantiated, un-documented, un photographed “Claims” by anonymous sources from obviously biased outlets are not factual) they do sound quite convincing and full of venom, definitely well written prose manipulated to provoke the maximum response from those who are, what was the phrase you used? “Ignorant” of the GC?

A quick reference for you would be Convention 4. Part 3. Section 1, Article 28, which states “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." Thou I am sure as a learned scholar of the GC you already knew as much.

I don’t know that we cut off water, nor would I bother to find out, as I do know denying an entrenched enemy in an urban environment power to greater enhance our technological advantage on them is doctrine, so it is surely not beyond the realm of feasibility that water would be cut as well to help weaken the enemy and drive the civilian population out of the city. But as the GC clearly states, when your enemy elects to hide behind civilians and use their presence as a defense, there is no pause. It is a horrible thing to be sure; defiantly something that requires conviction to pursue.

I don’t know what is more ironic. That the founding authors of the GC saw this kind of conflict coming way back then or that the obviously “educated” elements chose to ignore the fact that they did. I also don’t understand how people can raise such ire against the Americans, despite the medical care we give, re-construction of infrastructure, building of schools and the like, and shout and scream about civilian casualties we cause while turning a blind eye to the terrorists who actively target civilians and are quite proud of there success at doing it.

And then there is the big one, that somehow some peoples perspective of reality has become so deluded with propaganda that they throw logic to the wind and believe for one second that the Americans have chose to fight these terrorists in urban centers where we are hindered by regard for the civilian population that our foes use as cover instead of afield where we can utilize our tactical advantage to its fullest.

But please, preach on as to my ignorance of the GC, thou you may want to give credit where it is due and quote some of the authors you are repeating that propaganda from.

 

[Sander]

Well in that case you must have volumes held within there.

Which is exactly why you might want to take the time to peruse them.

I also don’t understand how people can raise such ire against the Americans, despite the medical care we give, re-construction of infrastructure, building of schools and the like, and shout and scream about civilian casualties we cause while turning a blind eye to the terrorists who actively target civilians and are quite proud of there success at doing it.

Why is it that every time some group is blamed the first response is to say 'yeah, but what about them?'
Fuck them, we're not talking about them, we're talking about the USA and what it should and could do better. This has jack shit to do with the terrorists blowing up stuff, no-one is excusing them or even suggesting that that's all the fault of the Americans, everyone agrees that that's a horrible thing. And that's exactly the reason why you don't hear anything about them: discussing something that everyone agrees upon is very useless.
So don't be so quick to ignore valid arguments with the rather childlike argument of 'But look at them'.

 

[Bradylama]

I also don’t understand how people can raise such ire against the Americans, despite the medical care we give, re-construction of infrastructure, building of schools and the like, and shout and scream about civilian casualties we cause while turning a blind eye to the terrorists who actively target civilians and are quite proud of there success at doing it.

What are these kind of arguments, again? I think Rosh can help me out here...

I thought we were referencing the treatment of the terrorists themselves, but apparently the point of this discourse has shifted.

insurgents = towel heads
towel heads \= insurgents

The fact is that no detainee has been given proper legal discourse to determine whether or not they qualify as a combatant, therefore they default as a civilian. Even in the case that they are proven as a combatant, they are still entitled to protections as a POW. "Terrorist" is not some all-encompassing label that indicates a person outside of the law, terrorism is a method.

 

[TheWesDude]

actually brandy there are 3 circumstances in which an enemy captured can be considered a POW and i cover how they would not satisfy any of the qualifiers. since they would not qualify as POWs, they would instead qualify as Civilians. it seems like the GC went very far to specify that only organizations with a strict and displayed rank/insignia and openly bearing arms would qualify as POW status.

 

[Poe]

Why is it that every time some group is blamed the first response is to say 'yeah, but what about them?

Well, if you did read what I had stated it as not my first response. However as wisdom dictates using that silly "perspective" thing in forming logic, ignoring it is beyond reason. While I am sure you are a scholar on what can be done would you kindly illuminate an example of where more has been done for a people in a similar circumstance, at any time in recorded history so that I may gain a better “perspective” on what we should be done?

The fact is that no detainee has been given proper legal discourse to determine whether or not they qualify as a combatant, therefore they default as a civilian. Even in the case that they are proven as a combatant, they are still entitled to protections as a POW. "Terrorist" is not some all-encompassing label that indicates a person outside of the law, terrorism is a method.

There is no doubt that the procedure they use to determine who is guilty of terrorism and who is not is questionable, at best. However as detainees are under suspicion, while the “innocent until proven guilty” process takes place awarding them the same rights and protections of the civilian populace is quite the leap for me, would you fill in on what legal precedent you would make such a stance from?

For as far as terrorism being an “method” and not some “all encompassing label I think you have a different definition of it than everyone else. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. As terrorism is unlawful, by definition if you are a terrorist, practicing it as a “method” you are outside the law of civilized man; so I have to ask under what situation terrorism, and terrorists can be considered lawful?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I agree with Roshambo's, Brady's and Sander's counterarguments. Poe, your sad attempt to twist and relativize internationally recognized principles of warfare is grounds for stamping "Apologetic Moron" on your forehead, while your transparent use of Tu Quoque fallacy to justify American war crimes is grounds for banning you outright.

What yardstick do you use to come to the determination that the actions in Iraq are a failure?

The same yardstick which tells me that the number of dead Iraqi civilians and Allied soldiers has already exceeded the 30,000 mark, that the country is slowly sinking into chaos as internal divisions grow deeper and Allied troops along with Iraqi police struggle to maintain order even in areas that were previously relatively tranquil, that extremism is on the rise and radical movements bent on turning Iraq into an Iran-style theocratic dictatorship are becoming dominant political forces in Iraq, that oil production has dropped to less than two thirds of what it was under Saddam's regime, that even in US the public is now predominantly against the occupation of Iraq, that the invasion has led to an increase in global terrorism and uncontrolled rise of oil prices, that no WMDs were ever found anywhere... Do I need to continue or have those three neurons in your head helped you realize the full stupidity of your question?

 

[Poe]

I agree with Roshambo's, Brady's and Sander's counterarguments. Poe, your sad attempt to twist and relativize internationally recognized principles of warfare is grounds for stamping "Apologetic Moron" on your forehead, while your transparent use of Tu Quoque fallacy to justify American war crimes is grounds for banning you outright.

Interesting, I made two defensive points based on commonly accepted definitions and then countered with two follow-up questions. There was no reference to either user in my defenses presented; yet you would say I was utilizing logical fallacy? Are you sure you know what that means? In neither response was argumentum ad hominem, despite the personal nature of the points I was responding to, nor was there any counter referencing either’s posters stance, so I am unsure how the presentation of a follow up question can fall into that definition? I mean if you wish to ban me due to my point of view, I have little recourse, but please be so kind as to utilize the correct Latin when doing so.

Do I need to continue or have those three neurons in your head helped you realize the full stupidity of your question?

Stupidity? Well then would you humor a fool and broaden your own perspective? Now from the horses mouth it should be obvious that there are two sides to the issue, and while Iraq is struggling I would not yet concede that she is out of the fight by any stretch.

You can continue to insult me, but before you get to deep into it you may want to consider your sources and what they want you to hear and perceive. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle the only “stupidity” is of those who do not realize that.

As a follow up question, if you would indulge my stupidity of course. With all the setbacks and mistakes, terrorists and government ineptitude taken to account, do you believe that Iraq would have had a better future under the reign of the Hussein’s than what she faces now and that inaction would have served her people better?

 

[Max Demian]

I think I'll have to side with Poe here, even though I'm strongly oposed to US foreign policy, especially the one regarding Iraq. But his arguments hold more ground than do any of yours. Not to mention that he’s virtually the only one showing “proper discussion conduct”, i.e. not blatantly insulting other members of the forum. Obviously, the man is neither stupid nor uneducated as you’re implying – quite the opposite. The problem here is your(plural) biasness and lack of understanding for other peoples views on the same subject. Something which really doesn’t befit experienced “debaters”. Not to mention a methodical lack of factual reference to back any of your claims…and more importantly lack of any “hands-on” experience, unlike this gentleman who’s witnessed or experienced the actual implementation of GC in real life situations.
Naturally, everything isn’t and can’t be expected to be perfect – give one example of modern combat where the GC was entirely adhered to anyway?

 

[Sander]

Well, if you did read what I had stated it as not my first response. However as wisdom dictates using that silly "perspective" thing in forming logic, ignoring it is beyond reason. While I am sure you are a scholar on what can be done would you kindly illuminate an example of where more has been done for a people in a similar circumstance, at any time in recorded history so that I may gain a better “perspective” on what we should be done?

Quite frankly, no. I'm not going to hold the USA's conduct to a comparison from the past, because quite simply, things are not the same as the past. What I am going to hold it up to is the possiblities of its conduct, which could very well have been better.
Again, the argument you present is similar to the 'But look at them' argument (my rebuttal was, by the way, entirely ignored by you, so you should not be the one to judge others on their 'proper discussion'). No, I can't name any situation in the past where the parties have acted better, but hey, this not then is it? The USA can do better, and that's the most important thing, especially for a nation which prides itself to be the home of freedom and whatnot.
In fact, the vast majority of your arguments seem to consist of such relative arguments. Hussein did worse, yes. But then again, if Hitler had been at the helm, the Jews would've been off much worse, eh?
See the fallacies there? The fact that some party would've done worse has jack shit to do with how another party can act right now.

For as far as terrorism being an “method” and not some “all encompassing label I think you have a different definition of it than everyone else. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. As terrorism is unlawful, by definition if you are a terrorist, practicing it as a “method” you are outside the law of civilized man; so I have to ask under what situation terrorism, and terrorists can be considered lawful?

Okay, let's perform this argument again: a thief is by definition unlawful, hence he is otuside the law and we must not respect his rights granted by law.
See the fallacy?

I think I'll have to side with Poe here, even though I'm strongly oposed to US foreign policy, especially the one regarding Iraq. But his arguments hold more ground than do any of yours. Not to mention that he’s virtually the only one showing “proper discussion conduct”, i.e. not blatantly insulting other members of the forum. Obviously, the man is neither stupid nor uneducated as you’re implying – quite the opposite. The problem here is your(plural) biasness and lack of understanding for other peoples views on the same subject. Something which really doesn’t befit experienced “debaters”. Not to mention a methodical lack of factual reference to back any of your claims…and more importantly lack of any “hands-on” experience, unlike this gentleman who’s witnessed or experienced the actual implementation of GC in real life situations.

Plural? I only commented on his logical fallacies so far. Roshambo has provided factual reference, and so has Ratty, considering the fact he provided it in his first post.
As for hands-on experience, I point to Roshambo, who's been in the service. So maybe you need to figure out some things before you start commenting on other people.
Lastly:

Naturally, everything isn’t and can’t be expected to be perfect – but give one example of modern (urban) combat where the GC was entirely adhered to anyway?

Bullshit argument. Again: no, I can't. Does this mean that the USA is now excused from not behaving in the way it could? No.