The Iraq thread 4

[baff 0]

Saddam is an American prisoner.

"Iraqi justice" must get U.S. approval first.

The whole Iraqi government has been setup and vetted by the U.S.

Judicial system and all.

Letting Saddam live won't demonstrate that the government was freely elected* in any way.

It's not even remotely democratic. The largest political party in the land was outlawed from standing entirely.

Although I entirely agree, it would be rather more civilised of them not to kill him.

Perhaps a nice exile to a remote island or house arrest in some pleasant little fortress in the hills for the rest of his life.

Prosecuting former leaders as war criminals is not civilised at all.

(*)If they put Saddam up for re election, that might demonstrate a free democratic process.

[SFWanabe 0]

I say kill the fucker and I'm sure alot of other sane people agree with me.

[baff 0]

I agree. Better to just execute him without trial than make a mockery of your own justice system.

But then you can't reinstall him later, when he is feeling more compliant (and the Iraqi's are feeling a little more rebellious).

The Iraqi government won't stay America's pet for very long.

It never does.

It's more civilised to keep hold of all the previous leaders and exiles so that you have someone to take over neatly again next time you fancy a regime change.

[SFWanabe 0]

You really need to go with more facts rather than warped opinions of amercia.

[baff 0]

The "you just hate America" card has already been played in a thousand other threads.

Sorry, but I'm wise to that kind of casual dismissal.

What are my opinions about America please? (and why do you think they are so warped?)

I wasn't aware that I had discussed them with you.

Having my opinions dismissed by conveniently "paranoid" Americans who prefer to dismiss other peoples views as "mindless yankee bashing" rather than address the issues at hand, is a very poor debating trick and you'll have to do better.

These are three statements I consider to be factual. Which do you consider to instead be a "warped opinion of America"?

Saddam will be found guilty regardless of what happens in any trial.

Saddam is not a prisoner of the Iraqi's. He is held in a U.S. military base.

The largest political party in Iraq was outlawed and barred from standing for government in the recent "free" Iraqi election.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Saddam will be found guilty regardless of what happens in any trial.

And? It's not like he is innocent of the charges. He has his chance to have his say in court and try to defend himself.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam is not a prisoner of the Iraqi's. He is held in a U.S. military base.

Common sense.. U.S. military bases in Iraq are secure and well-protected compared to "other" places in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]The largest political party in Iraq was outlawed and barred from standing for government in the recent "free" Iraqi election.

The Nazis, the largest political party in Germany pre-surrender to the Allies and Soviets, were barred from the German government following the war. I hope you see the point on why that was and take that point to what happened in Iraq (the baath party).

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]The "you just hate America" card has already been played in a thousand other threads.

Sorry, but I'm wise to that kind of casual dismissal.

What are my opinions about America please? (and why do you think they are so warped?)

I wasn't aware that I had discussed them with you.

Having my opinions dismissed by conveniently "paranoid" Americans who prefer to dismiss other peoples views as "mindless yankee bashing" rather than address the issues at hand, is a very poor debating trick and you'll have to do better.

The way you talk about america shows your warped opinion of it. Also I'm not paranoid and thats your warped opinion of me. And last but not least when you talk in such a away like Iraq being america's pets you prolly do just hate america. I dont consider this a debate of true facts my friend I consider this a debate of questionable facts and warped opinions.

Quote[/b] ]Saddam is not a prisoner of the Iraqi's. He is held in a U.S. military base.

Also just because hes in a US Military base doesnt mean hes not an Iraqi prsioner so please if your going to debate dont put yourself in a position to look stupid.

[Balschoiw 0]

Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan

Quote[/b] ]A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister

Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of

Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

In those meeting minutes -- which have come to be known as the Downing Street Memo -- British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about

Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his relations with terrorists to justify invasion of Iraq.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday.

Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The

Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003.

The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser

Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."

Later in the summer, the postwar doubts would be raised again, at the July 23 meeting memorialized in the Downing Street Memo. Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, the British intelligence service, reported on his meetings with senior Bush officials. At one point, Dearlove said, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing June 5 on "Meet the Press," disagreed with Dearlove's remark. "I think that there was clearly planning that occurred."

The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."

The Downing Street Memo has been the subject of debate since the London Sunday Times first published it May 1. Opponents of the war say it proved the Bush administration was determined to invade months before the president said he made that decision.

Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.

Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.

Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the

United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion.

Dang !

Interesting read when you keep in mind that the TBA still insist on perfect planning, even for the aftermath of the war that noone needed.

Interestingly enough this comes from the Blair government and not some european lefties....

[walker 0]

Hi all

People continue to die in Iraq for The Bush Administration's Lies  

Quote[/b] ]Bomb strikes key Iraq oil centre

At least 16 people have been killed in a bombing in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk, a key centre of Iraq's oil industry.

More than 50 people were wounded in the explosion near al-Rafidain bank in the centre of the city, police say.

Many of the victims were said to be civil servants waiting to receive their monthly salary.

A local police chief, Colonel Shirzad Abdullah, told the AFP news agency that the bomb had been placed in a wooden market pushcart near the bank.

Victims also included elderly people and child street vendors selling food, police said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4090626.stm

And still the soldiers must cope with the stress and guilt they feel for a war that should never have been, for which there was No WMD, No links to 9/11, No links to al Qaida; untill TBA fermented them, and for which TBA HAVE NO EXIT STRATEGY

Quote[/b] ]Battle-Hard G.I.'s Learn To Release Their Pain

Team Helps Soldiers Beat Trauma

By Jonathan Finer

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, June 14, 2005; Page A01

BAGHDAD -- When three Minnesota National Guardsmen died in a roadside bombing in February, their home towns grieved in the usual way. Flags flew at half-staff. Streets were renamed in honor of the fallen. And neighbors spoke of a war brought home in painful relief.

But the soldiers who were left behind -- a company of about 150 builders, farmers, policemen and students -- still had 10 months remaining on their year-long deployment. And haunted by the deaths of men some had known since childhood, they had to find a way to carry on. So before the unit even held a memorial service, the commanding officer called in the specialists: a combat stress control team from the Army's 55th Medical Company out of Indianapolis, whose slogan is "serving the best by controlling the stress."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....11.html

Now the world must cope with Iraq the Al Qaida Training Camp where Al Qaida are able to evolve their doctrine with now daily bombings, every time becoming a little more expert at their craft. Where they are able to rotate their operatives willy nilly across borders that do not even exist any more, because TBA has never bothered to put in the numbers needed to control them. Al Qaida is probably on a faster rotation that the coalition troops who now regularly face 12 to 18 months in Iraq.

All the worst predictions of this war seem to be comming to pass. If the expected civil war in Iraq occurs we may truly be looking at Amagedon with Israel, Pakistan and most of the middle east a nuclear wasteland.

Sadly Walker

[harley 3 1185 0]

To be honest I don't think we have anything to fear from Pakistan-President Musharraf is well-entrenched there and he isn't exactly a despot. Pakistan isn't a Democracy, but then again you show me a predominantly Muslim-ruled country which is Democratic in the Western sense.

If I were Tony Blair, I'd be shoring up the defenses of Pakistan with as much surplus equipment as I could just in case Iran decides to swing to the extremist corner again (and, no, I don't think there's going to be another war in India-Pakistan-If there was I'd go join in).

For all those fine arm-chair historians at home, who are interested in the economic and historical fallacies connected with the Iraq campaign, I recommend the fine tome 'Colossus', by Niall Fergusson, chronicling the present state of the 'American Empire'. Most interesting is the comparison between the British liberation of Mesopotamia in 1918, and the American liberation of Iraq today-with many years of unrest following both. A most engaging and enlightening read...

[walker 0]

Hi all

Yet another bad day in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Bombings overshadow Iraq rescue

Bombers have hit Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad, killing at least 33 people in two separate attacks.

At least 25 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the first blast, by a suicide bomber wearing an Iraqi army uniform.

Hours later, a suicide car bomber slammed into a police patrol in southern Baghdad, killing eight.

The attacks come on the same day that Australian hostage Douglas Wood, 63, was freed after being held captive in Iraq for six weeks.

Mr Wood was freed in an Iraqi military operation backed by US forces, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.

He denied a ransom had been paid.

The former hostage has thanked his rescuers and is now undergoing medical tests.

Worrying tactic

The first of Wednesday's two explosions took place at a canteen inside an army base in the town of Khalis, 60km (40 miles) north of Baghdad.

Army officials say the attacker waited until soldiers had gathered for lunch before blowing himself up.

About 30 people are reported to have been injured in the blast.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the attack will be extremely worrying for Iraqi security forces.

It marks the second time in four days that a bomber in army uniform has infiltrated an Iraqi military base.

The last such attack was on Saturday, killing four people.

At least 900 people - mostly Iraqi civilians - have been killed in renewed violence since a new interim government was formed on 28 April...

The increasing sophistication of the attacks is a worrying trend as it shows we are having little effect on the insurgent and terrorists learning curve. Esentialy it means we are having no effect on the training and command and control elements of the insurgents and terrorists.

It is the management aspects that need to be targeted we are just not capturing and turning enough of the lower ranks in order to discover where their leaders are. I blame the gutting of US inteligence services and replacement of it by the totaly stupid idiots of the Office of Special Plans; the idiots that lead to this moronic no reason for it war in the first place.

Sadly Walker

[SFWanabe 0]

Hi all

Yet another bad day in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Bombings overshadow Iraq rescue

Bombers have hit Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad, killing at least 33 people in two separate attacks.

At least 25 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the first blast, by a suicide bomber wearing an Iraqi army uniform.

Hours later, a suicide car bomber slammed into a police patrol in southern Baghdad, killing eight.

The attacks come on the same day that Australian hostage Douglas Wood, 63, was freed after being held captive in Iraq for six weeks.

Mr Wood was freed in an Iraqi military operation backed by US forces, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said.

He denied a ransom had been paid.

The former hostage has thanked his rescuers and is now undergoing medical tests.

Worrying tactic

The first of Wednesday's two explosions took place at a canteen inside an army base in the town of Khalis, 60km (40 miles) north of Baghdad.

Army officials say the attacker waited until soldiers had gathered for lunch before blowing himself up.

About 30 people are reported to have been injured in the blast.

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the attack will be extremely worrying for Iraqi security forces.

It marks the second time in four days that a bomber in army uniform has infiltrated an Iraqi military base.

The last such attack was on Saturday, killing four people.

At least 900 people - mostly Iraqi civilians - have been killed in renewed violence since a new interim government was formed on 28 April...

The increasing sophistication of the attacks is a worrying trend as it shows we are having little effect on the insurgent and terrorists learning curve. Esentialy it means we are having no effect on the training and command and control elements of the insurgents and terrorists.

It is the management aspects that need to be targeted we are just not capturing and turning enough of the lower ranks in order to discover where their leaders are. I blame the gutting of US inteligence services and replacement of it by the totaly stupid idiots of the Office of Special Plans; the idiots that lead to this moronic no reason for it war in the first place.

Sadly Walker

What else is new?

[miles teg 1]

I imagine that alot of these terrorists get training in other countries like Syria and Lebanon as well. I imagine that there are also small training camps in Yemen, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, and other areas with vast remote places that are perfect for training camps. It doesn't take much to set up a training camp. Just a secure supply to weapons, ammo, and explosives and instructors who know what they are doing along with a little plot of land in a remote location.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[walker 0]

Hi all

Current deployments are stretching the UK contingent to breaking point. With around half the UK Forces actualy on deployment. Most militaries like to work with around a third on deployment; this leaves sufficent time for training and to train up new recruits among experienced personel and for rest and recuperation. Deployments are now often 18 months which means that core skills are starting to be lost.

Quote[/b] ]Fears over UK forces' readiness

Britain's armed forces could struggle to respond to a sudden emergency because of recent commitments around the world, a watchdog has warned.

The National Audit Office says Navy funds have been diverted to the Army for duties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It adds that RAF fast-jet pilots are also spending one hour less in the air a month, which could affect skills.

But Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram says troops would not be put at risk despite the high level of commitments.

'Stretched'

The Ministry of Defence says it is unsurprising that the current level of troop commitments has an impact on soldiers being ready for more operations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4093720.stm

the above article comes from this report

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/050672.pdf

here is the executive summary

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/050672es.pdf

Clearly the current deployments mean the UK armed forces need more money spent on them.

Regards a worried walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I imagine that alot of these terrorists get training in other countries like Syria and Lebanon as well.

There isn´t much training needed for those kind of attacks and it´s best and most efficient handled inside Iraq these days as the security situation is so bad that even countries like Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco have a much better one. So why take a risk when you can do it all in Iraq in a much safer way.

[Bordoy 0]

Saddam shouldn't get the death sentance IMO.

Walker: It's all a bloody cost cutting excercise. That is what the algamation of regiments and other cuts will be. It is nothing to do about making the Armed Forces more flexible and quick rection force.

[harley 3 1185 0]

The British Armed Forces, for the past forty-five years, have needed money spent on them - less than they deserve anyway, and less than necessary to maintain an adequate defense of our country and to act (as currently) as a tool of misguided foreign policy.

The British Army hasn't suffered so much in terms of manpower, but the burden imposed on it will inevitably affect combat-readiness. It's equipment, whilst good in most cases, is scarce; the reason you get bawled out in the British Army for losing something is because they'll probably have to get a new item made! The fact that British Army generals have openly acquiesced in the shrinking budgets and manpower tallies is a disgrace, and shows how much General Officers now protect their rears.

The Royal Navy today would not be able to fight a campaign on the scale of the Falklands War; it has been cannibalised to the point where half the fleet (currently less than tenth the size of the United States Navy) cannot deploy for lack of fuel, with serious consequences for training. Again, Admirals have agreed to the whole "Smaller is better" mentality.

And again with the Royal Air Force; the size of the R.A.F. now is such that it would only be able to harass any enemy in war - let alone win air superiority - the Air Officers seem to think that small and packing a punch is better than many packing a punch.

There seems to be a conspiracy in the Ministry of Defense and the Old War Office Building to deliberately slash the strength of the Armed Forces to the point where nothing can be done, even though their Government is asking more and more of them. It's disgusting. Every politician and administrative officer should be ashamed of themselves for endangering both the soldiers, sailors and airmen and the British public with their thriftiness.

We should leave the EU and spend the money on our needy Armed Forces, and enlarge them, instead of turning possible entrants down for fiscal reasons. What does it say to a young man or woman who wished to serve his or her country, and the Recruiter says, "Sorry, we're not taking."

This "Smaller is better" mentality is foolhardy; it very nearly cost us the Falklands Campaign, and that was when we were supposed to be capable of fighting the Soviet juggernaut!! The British Armed Forces are a drop in the ocean compared to the those of the United States, whom Tony Blair loves to identify himself as an equal with. The United States Navy alone has 4,000 Aircraft, about 3,000 more than all the British Armed Services put together! Blair should either stop trying to look big on the world stage or step upto the challenge and give Britain an Army, a Navy and an Air Force to be proud of once more, before there is noone left willing to serve.

[Bordoy 0]

I agree with you Harley.

This Royal Navy guy came into college a few months ago and i was talking to him, and he said only a tiny amount of the budget is spent on the armed forces, plus that has got to be split up into 3.

Also we spend over 50% of the budget on social security and i don't know why, it's crap, lol.

[Warin 0]

Amen, brother!

The Canadian Forces are in even more dire straits, althoughmore is being spent. However, it is not nearly enough. We rely far too much on the fact we live next to the USA.

I am glad that then-PM Chretien refused to join the Iraq adventure, and instead commited us to Afghanistan for "peace keeping". At least Afghanistan had a connection to 9/11, and thus some justification for military action. Unlike the Saddam Adventure 2.

[denoir 0]

Harley, do you really have such delusions of grandeur, that you think that the British military can be anything but a second rate military power?

No matter if you spent your entire GNP on the military, you would still be nowhere close the big ones (US, Russia, China..).

You seem to forget that the Victorian age is over, and Britain is just a small island. If you want to be strong, you can either become the 51st US state or try to get the EU to form a common military. Beyond that, you are out of luck.

[Bordoy 0]

Harley, do you really have such delusions of grandeur, that you think that the British military can be anything but a second rate military power?

No matter if you spent your entire GNP on the military, you would still be nowhere close the big ones (US, Russia, China..).

You seem to forget that the Victorian age is over, and Britain is just a small island.

China? All they are good for is alot of men with shit training. I'm sure we would be alot better as we only send a small amount anyway.

Warin: Do you lot still have The Grey and Simcoe Foresters Regiment over there?

[EiZei 0]

Bah, britain has nukes and the means to deliver them far enough. The rest is quite irrevelant when it comes to defence.

[Donnervogel 0]

China? All they are good for is alot of men with shit training. I'm sure we would be alot better as we only send a small amount anyway.

Uhmm don't be misguided. CHina nowdays has quite nice weapon technologies and is developing a state of the art high tech industry branch as we speak. Give them some years and they won't only have millions of soldiers but also modern weaponry (maybe not for all of them but who cares, the rest can be sent in as cannon fodder)

Also the masses alone are not to be underestimated... look at the Soviets in WW2.

At some time the only the amout of PoW the germans had to take care of almost broke their neck (so they just decided to either kill them or let them starve)

[harley 3 1185 0]

No, Denoir, I do not have delusions of grandeur. I would, however like a military which can do what is asked of it without hopelessly straining it. Of course, we would NEVER, EVER reach anywhere near the size of the U.S. Armed Forces - we don't need to. But then again, the United States Armed Forces have absolutely no need to be as large as they are. Britain has few commitments compared to the past, but still we struggle today to adequately meet them-case in point Falklands scenario - if we had to fight for them again it would be even harder than last time. There's no delusions of grandeur there, unless you sympathise with the Argentinians.

Do you honestly think AMERICA really needs such a large military? They can't really afford it, and it's far too unbalanced vis a vis the requirements of modern warfare, but the American people like it that way.

And I think we could afford a boost in numbers/spending somehow, if we cut ourselves off from the Goddamned European Union and stopped spending money on a thousand seemingly little things which end up costing us a fortune.

Just think of all the aid we're going to send to Africa now, when we're still trying to sort out Iraq and the former Jugoslavia!! Our priorities, and those of the Americans, need to be drastically be re-evaluated.

Anyway, Denoir, did you do National Service? Sweden has no need at all for Conscription, yet still your country has it. And I'm certainly not calling for Conscription here in Britain.

[Bordoy 0]

China? All they are good for is alot of men with shit training. I'm sure we would be alot better as we only send a small amount anyway.

Uhmm don't be misguided. CHina nowdays has quite nice weapon technologies and is developing a state of the art high tech industry branch as we speak. Give them some years and they won't only have millions of soldiers but also modern weaponry (maybe not for all of them but who cares, the rest can be sent in as cannon fodder)

Also the masses alone are not to be underestimated... look at the Soviets in WW2.

At some time the only the amout of PoW the germans had to take care of almost broke their neck (so they just decided to either kill them or let them starve)

Now thats why i would never have against China, or N Korea.