Vroom,
Thats one of the most reasonable responses I have ever seen from you! Is the MAG-10 kicking in or something?
Besides, there is no such thing as international law save the law or reciprocity. Chew on that one for a while libs.
Shrauper
Every once in a while the true reactionary, sorry I mean conservative, viewpoint shines through. Might makes right, this simple belief underlies all the neocons. We are more powerful than Europe, than Asia, than the Middle East, hence their opinions are meaningless. If international law doesn’t exist then what is the basis of our invasion of Iraq. I thought it was Resolution 1441?
Bonne annee et bonne sante
Flanker
Hedo
The Iraqi’s are using left over weapons from the previous regime. They have some current French weapons that were supplied during the embargo but nothing real current. The chances of resupply or a massive counter-attack by the patron nation do not exist.
Don’t forget that the good ol’ US of A gave a lot of money and support to Iraq in the 80s. A hell of a lot more than the French ever did.
Flanker
Flanker
I think open market purchases from France during the embargo dwarf the aid we gave Iraq in the late 80’s.
When we realized what Sadaam was, we cut him off. France did not. They went for the profit.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Flanker
I think open market purchases from France during the embargo dwarf the aid we gave Iraq in the late 80’s.
When we realized what Sadaam [sic] was, we cut him off. France did not. They went for the profit.[/quote]
No, you are wrong. Please for the sake of reasonable discourse admit the US wrongly supported a brutal dictator.
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would “probably” include “an eventual nuclear weapon capability,” harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
Flanker -
We supported Iraq in the EARLY 80’s. Do you have any idea why? Are you even old enough to remember the early 80’s?
There was a little country calle Iran that was holding 50 or so innocent civilians hostage. Iran had just been taken over by Islamic extremists after overthrowing the Shah.
We supported Iraq as the lesser of two evils. Your attempts to equate us with France’s profiteering is indicative of your inability to look at the U.S. objectively. You hate this country. Admit it. Quit lying.
I am a friend of bluepfaltz and after seeing the direction this thread quickly took I felt the need to interject and say that flanker is the most patriotic person here. Dissent and revolution are the lifeblood of our country and he should not be called a traitor for speaking out against the President. In fact silencing the opposition is the least patriotic thing I can imagine and the worst injustice to the Constitution that I can think of. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with harsh criticism to the President have been hiding behind the threat of terrorism and the sacrifices our soldiers make for too long.
Soldiers don’t go into danger for George W. Bush. They fight to defend the freedom of our Democratic system. We have the world’s oldest and strongest living Constitution and democracy. We’ve lived through an invasion less than forty years after our nation’s birth, a civil war, two world wars, a cold war and numerous other conflicts for expansion and containment. We can defeat terrorism without great lose so long as we avoid taking a reactionary stance. Unfortunately it seems like we are doing exactly that. If the Bush administration were given the option it would throw the baby out with the bath water and sacrifice the freedoms our soldiers and civillians have died for. Luckily our strong Constitution has held them back but they have made steps in that direction so that is why I have a bone to pick with W. Those masters of revisionist history have half the nation bah bahhing when there should be great public outcry in the streets.
Concerning the opening topic it is hard to put the finger on Bush as a war criminal simply because of the number of treaties he has dodged out of our shot down just so he can employ every new $100 billion toy DARPA and Lockheed hand over to the Pentagon. I find it tragically amusing that these weapons are considered nescessary to the defense of our nations simply because they kill a lot more people than the previous model. The Airforce could fill a bomb with some cement and drop it on an Iraqi tank with just as much lethality as a 500pd warhead and do we need 1000pd bombs that level entire blocks to destroy a house with perhaps five insurgents in it and 30 civillians in and around it? Or could we perhaps use a 100pd bomb and spare a few people? Here’s a few quotes about Depleted Uranium munitions. Think about what I just said and ask yourself if they are really needed on the battlefield when other options like tungsten exists.
“The UN Environment Program (UNEP) plans to send a team of scientists to Iraq to examine the effects of DU, which is both radioactive and toxic. Although past studies have found no significant risk from either effect, experts say that a combination of the two effects could cause harm.”
“In the Gulf war in 1991, about 350 tons of DU was fired at Iraqi tanks. It is estimated that a similar amount will be used in the current Iraq war. Since 1991, southern Iraq doctors have reported a significant increase in cancers and birth defects, which they believe may have been caused by DU contamination.”
“However, uranium is ?genotoxic,? which means it chemically alters DNA. It has been suggested that this alteration, which switches on genes that would otherwise not be expressed and causes abnormally high activity in cells, could trigger tumor growth.”
It isn’t a crime to use them today but with our experience from the first Gulf War and the fact that we don’t don’t need them I think DU falls in the category of landmines.
Even if Bush can’t be pinned for international war crimes (which I belief he can be) it’s clear that the public did not recieve the full truth about Iraq’s WMD capabilities and the threat it really didn’t pose. Bush says he acted on the evidence presented by the CIA but what about the dissenting opinion’s within that organization and others? I’ve got a news flash for W and that is that it has always been the role of the President to act as the head of national intelligence. He should have known more than Tenet and known that Iraq posed no real threat. If he doesn’t deserve to be impeached for lying then he deserves to be removed from office for his inability to fill the rolls and duties of Comander in Chief. On top of all that the Iraq war was unlike most other wars we have fought in that it was a war of choice fought at the President’s convenience. Rumsfield’s remark that you go to war with the army you’ve got was uncalled for considering the only timetable for this war was the Presidential election cycle. And finally do you all know of the General that was being moved around from theatre to theatre with the orders to get better intelligence from captives? They kept on moving him around pleased with his work while prisoner abuse and torture followed in his wake. Then the media caught on and they gave him a desk job. Being lied to about sex is one thing but lies about war and torture are a real threat to the cloth from which this country is woven. Yes the threat that is greater than even the terrorists.
To puncuate this here are a few quotes about the right to dissent and the importance of freedom over national security…
“Every generation needs a new revolution”- Thomas Jefferson
“If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution”- Abraham Lincoln
“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”- Hugo Black
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!”- Patrick Henry
flanker is not your enemy may be in some respects your brother. Think about what your opponents have to say because one day they may save you from yourself or from having the chains of obidience willing wrapped around you. Personally I would rather burn a flag then kiss ass to George Bush who I don’t even recognize as my president.
Dissent is Patriotic
One more quote I just learned. This is not to make the accusation but to explain why some see W as a new Hitler.
“If you are not with us you are against us”- George W. Bush and the entrance to Dachau concentration camp
There are many striking similarities perhaps not in their immediate actions but in their style, thinking and even some of their strategies and goals.
To call Bush a Nazi is not patriotic. To link together half-truths and lies to form a baseless charge against the president - especially during a time of war - is pure chicken shit.
I don’t expect the kool-aid sippers from the anti-war crowd to understand anything other than what has been spoon fed to them.
You have a legitimate right to be against the war - no one is debating that point. My problem is with the way you chose to debate the basis of your stance.
Blue and friend
To dissent is patriotic. To whine incoherently is simply annoying. If the level of dissent ever approached that which Thomas Jefferson was capable of I am sure we would all take notice. Keep in mind they just didn’t bitch about the government, they had an idea for a better one.
I don’t think you know much of war. Good for you. I hope you do not have to learn about it firsthand.
Cement bombs?? Tungsten you say for an anti-tank round?? Do you know what modern composite armor is? The principals behind anti-tank projectiles? Angles of defelection and reactive plates?
To a civilian college student these weapons may sound prudent indeed. To a soldier who may have to put his life on the line or go to war with one of these PC weapons, they are laughable.
Soldiers do not want a fight to be fair. They want it to be one-sided and quick. Any soldier wants to use the most effective weapon possible. Not one that is kinder and gentler to our enemy. They expect the civilian government to provide them. That is what war is about. Figthing fair is for the movies. The US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualities. They are the FIRST military in history to do so. We do not take measures to avoid harming our enemy.
So terrorist states are subject to laws to protect society but America is above the Geneva convention and the UN? Seems like a double standard. As for war crimes, Hussein obviously did commit them, but many have argued the embargos after Gulf War 1 killed more through starvation and poor health, additionally the Red Cross has estimated 100,000 civilians have become ‘collateral damage’. That’s a lot of blood on Bush’s hands. Additionally it doesn’t seem that Iraq has been liberated at all, now instead of Hussein the people are subject to beatings and imprisonment by American soldiers, bombs from terrorists and even if they live in a ‘peaceful’ area like the south all the jobs have gone to American contractors. All the while conservatives tap their bibles knowingly shouting ‘Git the hogs out the truck ma, its time to celebrate that there war in Iraq!!!’.
I’m Gonna add that I also think its idiotic how caught up in the rhetoric of government people get. Terrorists are not governed by the Geneva convention not because they are so reprehensible as to be completely outside juristiction therefore you can do as you please with them, they are not governed because the Geneva convention was written for land armies! IRA terrorists (who were funded by predominantly American organisations if you care to remember) were tried by the Crown Court and afforded full rights, the Lockerbae bombers were tried in Holland, and again afforded full rights. The Geneva convention did not need to cover terrorists because is assumed the Western states that tended to be on the recieving end would be humane and afford them full rights, of course America just saw that as an international law ‘loophole’. Now what the hell is a terrorist? Those people in Kabul weren’t, why? Because the BBC called them insurgents and thats a good word beacause they were fighting the US Amry and terrorists are ‘those that use terrorism’ terrorism being ‘the se of violence, sometimes indiscriminately, against persons and property for the nominal purpose of making a political statement’. But wait, didn’t America want to use violence to make a political statement too? Like ‘don’t rise up against the occupying forces and the new government’? Wasn’t the intial political statement regarding Iraq ‘we don’t like others having nukes’ so America used violence to emphasise it. Wow, it seems to me we’re on crumbling semantic ground here, yet people still firmly state that those in Iraq are terrorists and should be shown no mercy. They were a big group of people who shot at Americans and planted bombs, they could be terrorists or insurgents but I’m confident they see themselves as a liberation army (just to throw another spanner into the works). They fight unconventionally, but they don’t target civilians, just like the Americans in the War of Independance with their guerilla tactics. Hell, in the Civil War Sherman did target civilian areas, again unconventional violent tactics. If you haven’t got the picture yet what I’m saying is using the word ‘terrorist’ in the Iraq situation is impossible. The word has become too weighted and in the process meaningless. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, or insurgent or this that or the other. Just calling them America’s enemies sheds a whole new light on everything.
I just finished a long coversation with my friend who has been with his unit in Germany for the past year. They’ll be going downrange to Iraq in a few months. He’s a lucky one because he says he has everything he needs with one exception. He’s in an artillery unit but they have been training as infantry because the artillery pieces haven’t been working for the past year or so he was told. My guess is they just need more grunts. As for myself I will hopefully miss this war but I am hell bent on begining service in the military within the next few years. I had great admiration for my grandfather growing and for some reason I can’t even explain I have decided I will be the first member of my family in the service since WWII. I’ve payed close attention to the words of veterans my whole life. Nothing can prepare me for combat but perhaps I’ve learned a thing or two from listening to them.
Now I never said we should fight the war fair but there is more than a subtle difference between giving our soldiers an edge and simple wanton destruction. Yes I do happen to have a pretty good knowledge of the mechanics involved in armor penetration and I stick by what I said before. Effective and destructive are not the same thing. War isn’t clean but if what you say about the United States doing it’s best to prevent civillians casualties is true then why do we use cluster-bombs in residential areas? And I’ll also say I know enough not to blame the pilot, gun crew or whatever because I understand the stress they are under and that they are often not making the decision as to where to place their ordinance.
At least these people, our soldiers and their civillians, could be dying for something. Nothing makes a casualty an acceptable one but if we were achieving something and there was a like at the end of the tunnel then there would be something for the survivors to look foward to. That just isn’t the case. We invaded ill prepared and on the basis of lies or misconceptions. The handover was meaningless, the elections will be meaningless and for every Iraqi troop that fights there are 8 that flee and one or more that defects. My final thought on this subject is that war has many costs and it seems achingly clear that if Bush really meant to combat terrorism there were better ways to do it that would have meant better lives for millions of people.
As to my criticism of Bush. Not only do I have the right but I have the justification. There is nothing chickenshit about what I have said. There are things I believe in strongly. Freedom and honesty rank in the top three. George Bush has attacked just about everything I stand for. He has the mind (or at least the minions) of a tyrant and is most comfortable when cloaked by deception. I feel no shame in calling that man a turncoat and criminal. His military, economic and social policies betray the nation for the best interests of a select group. Power corrupts and his psychology and status make him a perfect victim for corruption if he even had a good heart in the first place. Not to mention the people he surrounds himself with. When you boil it all down there is enough evidence from enough reliable sources and documents to launch and investigation with a good chance of uncovering criminal activity. Unfortunately W isn’t your average citizen and the process to investigate and remove the President is a political one.
Even if hope is slim I will continue to speak out against this administration at every opportunity. My other highest belief is the fight against injustice. If I didn’t say anything then I would be just another sheep waiting for the wolves to come for me.
My apologies for a potential confusion…
My friend has been using my name after evesdropping on my Moving to Cali post and saw this one. As I defend what I believe in, I honestly think he makes very good points and as a Democrat I support his views.
I suggest he uses this name, as he is not a T-Man in most regards, i might discourage his joining except to drop 2 cents through my portal. However, if you would love to continue this discussion wihout going through me, Ill tell him and we’ll get him an account.
My name is Eric anyway, so refer to us different.
My two cents is that my friend is right, but Im open to all views and heard some great arguments.
Keep it up dudes.
I read very little of this thread. The massive bullshit that is littered everywhere is making this even worse than trying to fight my way through Harpers. Anyway, first off, Flanker: Your ideas are idiotic at best. We dropped the pimp hand on Iraq for various reasons. Mostly because we can, and because they don’t seem to like behaving. Last time I checked Libya wanted to get out of the stone age… I guess our bud Muanmar decided he didn’t want to end up like his family. But anyway…
I feel that several other people have denounced your argument for the assinine bullshit that it is. Leaving me no business but to still be enamoured of the rampant stupidity of it all. Depleted Uranium being a chemical weapon. I’d place it right up there with Mustard Gas, maybe Sarin next time. Are you kidding me?!? No wonder why the Swiss have been neutral for the last 500 years.
I am sure all of you guys that beleive this is the right war will all be volunteering to go over an fight in Iraq. Also just for your info…no army in the history of the world has ever been able to defeat insurgency…never, we couldn’t do it in vietnam and we won’t do it here. Also when Clinton was bombing Yuglsovia, and the right was coming down on him every day, I am sure you were the same people coming to his defense…after all Milosavich was killing many of his own people…that is why we attacked him…only NOT ONE american life was lost! Even though all the Republicans said it couldn’t be won with out a long and costly ground battle. I guess this long and costly ground battle is OK! By the way I hope no one out there has any guns in your possession…someone might shoot you as a pre-emptive strike…if you have them, you might use them against someone and there for that someone has the right(according to this president anyway), to shoot you first. I wonder why we don’t invade N. Korea…oh that’s right no OIL! By the way…it is this president that signed the bill that took away your right to buy and use products like MAG-10…hope you are all happy! Clinton protected natural supplements…sure glad he is gone!
Ironman, nice try. We all know it’s actually YOU!! Michael Moore… you fat socialist weasel! Go suck down a few hot dogs – your so-called “movie” sucked – and by the way, I read your Playboy interview where you said that the best alternative to invading Iraq to get to Saddam was to hire the Israelis to go get him. Those words made so much sense – to your mindless, pussified, brainwashed legions of supporters, I am sure. Your head is so far up your ass that you can’t listen to reason. I pray that you choke on a corn dog soon, you fat waste of oxygen.
I mean… you ARE Michael Moore… right?
Ironman,
my brother was in the battle group that launched the tomohawks on Milosovich.The feeling he had,and one that was echoed here was that it was a huge waste of missiles. It cost him another three months at sea away from his family. But that is what Pres. Clinton does when he gets caught with his pecker in some tramps mouth.
It’s called the art of distraction.Also completely off topic.And if you are so mad about mag 10 and the other andro supps being made illegal,take it up with the sports heros(criminals)that make headlines for being dirty and promoting a false level of competetive expertise. They blew it.
Blue, et al.
Trying to follow your numerous posts and posters but it is becoming difficult.
Dissent good. Joining the Army even better. Best of luck, sincerely.
I applaud your knowledge of mechanized warfare and your ideas on defeating modern armor with cement bombs and tungsten shells. After you recieve some initial training…bring them up to your CO. Tell them you would like to test them against a T-80. Please keep us posted on the results. You agree they should be tested before being used right?
As to whanton destruction of your enemy in battle. Report back to us after your first engagement, let us know how that worked out.
Like I said before…big difference between the movies and real life.
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
So terrorist states are subject to laws to protect society but America is above the Geneva convention and the UN? Seems like a double standard. [/quote]
John:
That would be a double standard. Unfortunately, it is a straw man. The point isn’t that the U.S. is not subject to the Geneva Convention, but that it does not apply to those operating outside of its precepts. The whole original point of the Geneva Conventions were to extend benefits in exchange for cooperation with its tenets. In other words, being treated according to the Geneva Convention was a carrot for complying with the strictures of the Geneva Convention. To extend the benefits of the Geneva Convention without requiring compliance undermines the entire premise of the Convention. What is the “carrot” for the terrorists to resist using torture, execution of prisoners and random bombings of civilians if they can rest assured that they will be offered the full benefit without their compliance?
The embargoes were a failure. Please see the “Oil for Food” scandal, as well as evidence that Saddam hoarded food and supplies in order to present a picture of his suffering people to the international community.
The failure of economic sanctions was one of the strongest arguments for military intervention.
As for the 100,000 estimate, the methodology of the Lancet estimate/study purporting to show that number has been widely questioned, because it is far and above all other estimates – by a factor of about 5.
Firstly, I don’t think the situations are at all comparable. While there are questions about the detentions and the methods employed at certain of the U.S. detention facilities, I don’t believe anyone has found any mass graves attributable to the U.S. soldiers, nor rape rooms, nor torture rooms – real torture and disfigurement, not just stuff “tantamount to torture,” whatever that may mean to the Red Cross [Note that if they had any info of anything amounting to torture under any official definition, I highly doubt they would hold it back].
Secondly, it doesn’t seem as if the U.S. can win here. The U.S. forces are rightly to be held to account for what they do, but holding them accountable for terrorist bombings (while at the same time arguing for extending the benefits of “civilized warfare” to the terrorists) doesn’t seem quite fair.
As for the awards of contracts to U.S. companies, while the U.S. companies do get the majority of the contracts, they also do a large amount of subcontracting to Iraqis as well as other foreign firms. The contracts go to those firms which have experience doing the jobs, and which are willing to shoulder the risk of doing the jobs. That’s a pretty small list of companies – especially if they won’t give any contracts to any French or German companies (rightly or wrongly in the German case).
[quote]All the while conservatives tap their bibles knowingly shouting ‘Git the hogs out the truck ma, its time to celebrate that there war in Iraq!!!’.
[/quote]
Come on now.