Our military certainly makes mistakes, and people should be held accountable, but on the other hand the U.S. upholds much stricter rules of engagement than any of its enemies (hell, even stricter than our cops). Should credit not be given for that?
In all honesty and at the very minimum, being criticized openly and fairly for atrocities is the cost of being seen as capable of virtuous military action.
The older I get though, the less objective distinction I see. I'm sure that's how the dead felt in their last moment as well. Just look at the last US bombing in Afghanistan where they hit the car full of water and children. We like to act like there's a higher standard, but who will ever be held accountable for that mistake? Nobody.
And where did you hear that from? Our "independent" papers of record aka state department stenographers?
And that's just one example from dozens many we only know about because of Assange's hard work.
And with regards to the enemies of the U.S., and their "rules of engagement" it's quite likely they don't adhere to any, but I don't know how much worse that is than "attack without warning on there being a 1/100 chance of you being a terrorist who is not even near any US asset".
Where is your evidence of this? I can't remember the last time a drone attacked US soil and killed innocent civilians. And have you actually seen the main video that Assange released with Apaches killing civilians?
Is that a joke?
Why comparing with enemies?
Should one or an org strive to be the best according to a universal standard?
Hm, good so far...
> (hell, even stricter than our cops).
Muahahahahaa! You just blew your own argument out of the water.