Awesome article by Marine that is in Iraq

[Backtothemac]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm

Check it out.

[LethalWolfe]

I definetly agree that the media, as well as people in general, tend to "view the world through a soda straw" and have bi-polar reactions to news and events. Everything is either really, really good, or really, really bad all depending on what is happening at that exact moment. Rarely is the whole picture ever taken into consideration.


Lethal

[Neserk]

how do you define awesome?

[Backtothemac]

One that is accurate. One from someone that has been there. One that is not tainted in an attempt to get better ratings than the next competitor for advertising dollars.

[skunk]

One that is accurate. One from someone that has been there. One that is not tainted in an attempt to get better ratings than the next competitor for advertising dollars.
Rumsfeld has been there too. Why don't we believe him?

[Frohickey]

Thanks for the article, BTTM.

One paragraph explains the doom/gloom that you read from the media news organizations.

War is inherently ugly and dramatic. I don't blame reporters for focusing on the burning vehicles, the mutilated bodies or the personal tragedies. The editors have little choice but to print the photos from the Abu Ghraib prison and the tales of the insurgency in Fallujah. These things sell news and remind us of the sober reality of our commitment to the Iraqi people. The actions of our armed forces are rightfully subject to scrutiny

If it bleeds, it leads. Nothing sells more news than stories of tragedies.

How many of you will watch the news if day in and day out, the news is... things are fine, electricity is still flowing in Iraq, running water is still being delivered, commerce is happening.

[Backtothemac]

Rumsfeld has been there too. Why don't we believe him?

Because you choose not to believe him. Personally, I do believe him.

[mactastic]

Good article, written by what sounds like a dedicated and honorable soldier. However, if military might was all we needed, the war would be over right now. Vietnam would be recorded in history as a US triumph. I've got no problem supporting the troops, but this is a mission I feel was undertaken for reasons other than building schools and making friends with Iraqis.

And I don't know where the 'expect 75% casulties' came from. Certainly not from the public pronouncements of the Bush administration. They were predicting 75% flower-throwing rates from the Iraqi populace - at least in the public sphere. Perhaps they were telling a different story to the troops, who knows. Those of us in the civilian world were told to expect little resistance, we'd be greeted as liberators, oil revenues would cover Iraqs reconstruction etc.

[mactastic]

Because you choose not to believe him. Personally, I do believe him.

Have you seen this? (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/) :rolleyes:

[Backtothemac]

Have you seen this? (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/) :rolleyes:

Yea, I can admit when someone is caught. Just like Clinton was caught. At least Rummy did not come back with "that depends on what the meaning of is is."

I don't believe everything out of his mouth that would be stupid, but on the subject of the situation in Iraq, yea, I believe him.

[Frohickey]

And I don't know where the 'expect 75% casulties' came from. Certainly not from the public pronouncements of the Bush administration. They were predicting 75% flower-throwing rates from the Iraqi populace - at least in the public sphere. Perhaps they were telling a different story to the troops, who knows. Those of us in the civilian world were told to expect little resistance, we'd be greeted as liberators, oil revenues would cover Iraqs reconstruction etc.

If they expected 75% flower-throwing rates, where were the military orders for flower vases? There were no orders for flower vases. There were orders for body bags and coffins though. :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Yea, I can admit when someone is caught. Just like Clinton was caught. At least Rummy did not come back with "that depends on what the meaning of is is."



At least Clinton didn't murder anyone or give permission for someone to be tortured... :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

One that is accurate. One from someone that has been there. One that is not tainted in an attempt to get better ratings than the next competitor for advertising dollars.

sorry. But there was nothing awesome about that. It came from someone who needs to justify why he is still following orders.

The most telling piece was where he talked about finishing the job they went to do. Yeah, that would be find weapons of mass destruction. They aren't there... Or have they not told the armed forces that. And to free the Iraqi people. But apparently that isn't the real agenda either, apparently tormenting them is why we are there, because that is what we are doing.

[mactastic]

If they expected 75% flower-throwing rates, where were the military orders for flower vases? There were no orders for flower vases. There were orders for body bags and coffins though. :rolleyes:

Well duh. It's a war, you expect body bags and coffins. As for the flower vase orders.... you don't really grasp the concept of hyperbole (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hyperbole) do you? Are you really trying to 'spank me' again by arguing that because the military didn't order flower vases the public wasn't told we'd be 'greeted as liberators'? Are you really trying to say that a lack of flower vase orders by the military proves something? :rolleyes: :eek:

[mactastic]

Yea, I can admit when someone is caught. Just like Clinton was caught. At least Rummy did not come back with "that depends on what the meaning of is is."

I don't believe everything out of his mouth that would be stupid, but on the subject of the situation in Iraq, yea, I believe him.

Typical Republican. Nothing like invoking the 'well Bill Clinton was worse' rhetoric when all else fails. Look, Rummy is a polititian before he's a soldier. Polititians lie. Rummy lied. End of story. I don't trust much of what comes out of his mouth these days, but that's just me. You only lie to me once before you've got a serious credibility problem. And yes, I have that problem with Clinton too, since I know you'll ask. Maybe you let people lie to you repeatedly before you lose faith. I don't.

[blackfox]

Fine article, although I agree that the news covers the more negative, dramatic events of this war (and others), I believe there are many people who are not pessimists per se, but have seen a lot of bad decision-making by the administration in guiding this war, and worry about the seriousness of the consequences. By nearly all accounts, the US military, when left to do the jobs they are trained for, are an exemplary fighting force...but policy decisions of an overly ideological basis and poor resource allocation, has pushed us into this morass...

[Neserk]

WAs anyone around a year ago when the war was the most wonderful thing in the world? Geesh... short memories...

[Dippo]

Have you seen this? (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/) :rolleyes:


I don't see how that proves anything.
He never did say "Iraq is an imminent threat". People really hate Rumsfeld and they are try to catch him on any little thing.

As for the marine's report, I think that it goes to the heart of the problem. Only the bad things in Iraq are being reported and the gloom and doom is repeated daily. I rarely see anything positive about Iraq being aired except on fox news.

[LethalWolfe]

And I don't know where the 'expect 75% casulties' came from. Certainly not from the public pronouncements of the Bush administration. They were predicting 75% flower-throwing rates from the Iraqi populace - at least in the public sphere. Perhaps they were telling a different story to the troops, who knows. Those of us in the civilian world were told to expect little resistance, we'd be greeted as liberators, oil revenues would cover Iraqs reconstruction etc.


It's from the '91 Gulf War. Part of his piece centered around the difference between "projections" and "reality." Long story short, people predicted the first Gulf War would be long-fought and bloody. Obviously it was quite different.


Lethal

[zimv20]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm

from the tail of the article:

Maj. Ben Connable is serving as a foreign-area officer and intelligence officer with the 1st Marine Division.

what is the role of the intelligence officer?

[Backtothemac]

sorry. But there was nothing awesome about that. It came from someone who needs to justify why he is still following orders.

The most telling piece was where he talked about finishing the job they went to do. Yeah, that would be find weapons of mass destruction. They aren't there... Or have they not told the armed forces that. And to free the Iraqi people. But apparently that isn't the real agenda either, apparently tormenting them is why we are there, because that is what we are doing.

What? Man, two days ago a serin artillery shell was used as an IED. Also two weeks ago they found Mustard Gas. See the thing that no one seems to understand is that Saddam's chemical shells look identical to the other non chemical shells. So. that being said. Go shift through the 3 - 4 million rounds that are stored in Iraq. Figure out which ones are chemical and which are not. Oh, and you have one year, and you have to battle insurgents at the same time.

They have found WMD"S. Not stockpiles, but, think about it. A drop of Serin can kill you, one drop. That was a gallon. How many thousands of people could that have killed. The WMD's are there, they will find them.

As for the article, you have completely missed the point. The point is how the media portrays only the negative.

[Backtothemac]

Typical Republican. Nothing like invoking the 'well Bill Clinton was worse' rhetoric when all else fails. Look, Rummy is a polititian before he's a soldier. Polititians lie. Rummy lied. End of story. I don't trust much of what comes out of his mouth these days, but that's just me. You only lie to me once before you've got a serious credibility problem. And yes, I have that problem with Clinton too, since I know you'll ask. Maybe you let people lie to you repeatedly before you lose faith. I don't.


No, no no, you miss my point. I don't trust them all 100% of the time. BUT, I do trust them in certain areas. I trusted Clinton, and got burnned. However, I do think that Rummy got caught in a twist of words. That is all.

[Backtothemac]

At least Clinton didn't murder anyone or give permission for someone to be tortured... :rolleyes:


Do you hear yourself? Who exactly did Rummy murder?

[carbonmotion]

The fact that this guy works in intelligence should signal something to you as a reader immdiately. HELLO!? Thats MILITARY INTEL... personally I don't trust anything a spook tries to feed me exceptionally if its warm fuzzy news. This is like having a doberman who's licking your hands because his master told him to. Anyways, if anyone cared to read some of the UN or NGO reports on iraq you'd quickly realize that this war is fastly falling out of the intended path of the american planners. This year being an election year, these planted newsweek articles are no doubt republican attempts at trying to plug the loss of middle of the road republicans voters to the Dem Party. I'm not saying military action on iraq was completely unessary, I'm just saying please do it under a different banner then that of the United States of America. It would've been much better had we flown in there with a the blue UN flag instead of stars and stripes. If the US topples another soverign state, it looks bullyish. If the world does it, it looks justified. Since the the UN decided against going in to iraq then it was a damn good clue that we the US warmachine should not have stuck our pecker where it does not belong.

However**with that said
now that we are already there, pulling out would be a freaking disaster, so we gotta stay the course till the job is done. Till the nation of iraq is stabel and soverigen. Or until we can hand power to the UN to take over the reconstruction of iraq. Either way, this is the only reason why we must stanchly support our troops, because if we don't Iraq can turn in to another feudal state like Afghanastan.

[professor]

Who trusts that government and its ghost writers? This sounds too much like Readers Digest.

[Backtothemac]

Who trusts that government and its ghost writers? This sounds too much like Readers Digest.


I trust the men and women that are serving this country proudly. That sit on a wall and protect the world on a daily basis. The same ones that kept your country free for over 50 years.

[skunk]

I trust the men and women that are serving this country proudly. That sit on a wall and protect the world on a daily basis. The same ones that kept your country free for over 50 years.
It's a funny kind of pride that let's them debase the freedom they seem to imagine they are bringing.
On what basis do you trust them? Because you know they won't just follow orders? Because you trust the orders? Because you don't ask questions? Kept your country free? Debatable. And you don't even know if it IS his country. I'd call that very arrogant. More than fifty years? How do you calculate that? Which wall are you talking about? In fact, WHAT are you talking about?

[skunk]

By nearly all accounts, the US military, when left to do the jobs they are trained for, are an exemplary fighting force
I don't wish to intrude too much on this love-in, but by whose accounts? Which conflict(s) are we talking about here? What do you mean by "exemplary"?

[mactastic]

I trust the men and women that are serving this country proudly. That sit on a wall and protect the world on a daily basis. The same ones that kept your country free for over 50 years.

Don't confuse soldiers with policy makers. Professor mentioned 'the government and it's ghost writers' and you made the leap to 'the men and women that are serving this country'. They are not one and the same.

[skunk]

Don't confuse soldiers with policy makers. Professor mentioned 'the government and it's ghost writers' and you made the leap to 'the men and women that are serving this country'. They are not one and the same.
All the same, I wonder if the chronic lack of any coherent, reality-linked political leadership in Washington is leaving far too much of the political decision-making to the military.

[sushi]

Only the bad things in Iraq are being reported and the gloom and doom is repeated daily. I rarely see anything positive about Iraq being aired except on fox news.
So true.

As someone who knows many in the sandbox, and may be going there myself, I trust what they tell me rather than our press, the majority of which have hidden agendas.

Sushi

[skunk]

So true.
As someone who knows many in the sandbox, and may be going there myself, I trust what they tell me rather than our press, the majority of which have hidden agendas.

Sushi
Send us a blog.

[sushi]

from the tail of the article:

what is the role of the intelligence officer?
Short answer: The 2 has a very important responsibility to provide tactical and applicable strategic intel to the commander and staff.

They also provide the intel preparation of the battlefield. Which in a fluid environment, like the current sandbox West and East, are very important.

Good operations orders and execution depend on good intel.

The 2 and his staff also do many other things as well.

It is always a challenge for the 2 and his staff to provide current, up to date, applicable intel for ongoing operations and future options.

A good intel staff is worth their weight in gold!

Sushi

[Backtothemac]

It's a funny kind of pride that let's them debase the freedom they seem to imagine they are bringing.
On what basis do you trust them? Because you know they won't just follow orders? Because you trust the orders? Because you don't ask questions? Kept your country free? Debatable. And you don't even know if it IS his country. I'd call that very arrogant. More than fifty years? How do you calculate that? Which wall are you talking about? In fact, WHAT are you talking about?

I trust them, because I served with them. My father did, my grandfather did. My Cousins, my God Father, God Brother, God Sister. Nephew, Aunt, Uncle's, all served. My best friend serves now in Centcom. I trust them because of who they are, what they stand for and what they believe in. The wall. The wall is an imaginary wall that every US solider sits on every day protecting all of those around the world that respect it, and even those that don't. You are letting the actions of a few cloud your opinion of the military. I assume that since he says he is in Berlin, then, he is in Berlin, just like I assume you are actually in England. Unless you are liars, and then I guess I am wrong. Lets see, 1941 - 1989. Sorry, over 40 years. We helped keep England free for over 50 though.

[sushi]

I trust the men and women that are serving this country proudly. That sit on a wall and protect the world on a daily basis. The same ones that kept your country free for over 50 years.
Well put!

How soon they forget who provided the freedoms that they have and enjoy today.

Sushi

[Backtothemac]

I don't wish to intrude too much on this love-in, but by whose accounts? Which conflict(s) are we talking about here? What do you mean by "exemplary"?

Lets see, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan....

Do you want more examples?

[Backtothemac]

Well put!

How soon they forget who provided the freedoms that they have and enjoy today.

Sushi

Thank you for serving! Be safe in the box; keep your head down, Kevlar on, and come home soon, you will be in my prayers, and again, thank you.

[sushi]

Send us a blog.
Who has time?!

EDIT: Added the following:

<<<<< If you are referring to my contacts in the sandbox, they only send via e-mail or short phone calls. And no I won't post those messages.

Suffice it to say, the media misses a lot of what is going on. Rather they focus on what sells. In this case the actions of a few (7 for sure) rather than the rest of the 135,000 military in Iraq and the ones in Afganistan.

Let's see, 7 out of 135,000 is what, about 1/200th of one percent!

Granted what they did was wrong. And they will pay for what they did wrong (rightfully so) even while the war is going on.

Unfortunately, that seems to be all the press can focus on. Sure wish the press would tell the good stories. There are so many.>>>>

Sushi

[sushi]

Thank you for serving! Be safe in the box; keep your head down, Kevlar on, and come home soon, you will be in my prayers, and again, thank you.
Thanks!

...and please continue praying for those already there.

Sushi

[mactastic]

Well put!

How soon they forget who provided the freedoms that they have and enjoy today.

Sushi

Yeah you're right, those of us not in the military should just shut up and let the 'real Americans' handle things. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Thanks!

...and please continue praying for those already there.

Sushi

They don't need prayers, they need proper leadership and direction.

[Backtothemac]

Yeah you're right, those of us not in the military should just shut up and let the 'real Americans' handle things. :rolleyes:


It amazes me the lack of respect that those who don't serve, or have never serve have towards the military. To a group of people they have never met, and have no legitimate complaint with. It is almost a racist attitude. My brother never served. Because it isn't in him. He is not capable of that type of life. Is he scum for it. Hell no, it isn't for everyone. That is why NOT everyone goes into the military. It is a very demanding life, not only for the soldier, but for their family as well. Show a little respect will ya.

[skunk]

It amazes me the lack of respect that those who don't serve, or have never serve have towards the military. To a group of people they have never met, and have no legitimate complaint with. It is almost a racist attitude. My brother never served. Because it isn't in him. He is not capable of that type of life. Is he scum for it. Hell no, it isn't for everyone. That is why NOT everyone goes into the military. It is a very demanding life, not only for the soldier, but for their family as well. Show a little respect will ya.
I think that in this case we DO have a complaint. They are the means by which an illegal war and occupation is being prosecuted in Iraq.

[mactastic]

It amazes me the lack of respect that those who don't serve, or have never serve have towards the military. To a group of people they have never met, and have no legitimate complaint with. It is almost a racist attitude. My brother never served. Because it isn't in him. He is not capable of that type of life. Is he scum for it. Hell no, it isn't for everyone. That is why NOT everyone goes into the military. It is a very demanding life, not only for the soldier, but for their family as well. Show a little respect will ya.

This is not the first time people who have served in the military have tried to use their service as a lever to prove that they are 'in the right'. How would you feel if I was running around saying 'How soon those in the military forget who provides the funding for their very existance'? You think there are no other 'very demanding lives' that 'aren't for everyone'? And WTF are you dragging your brother in here for? Are you saying that by extension I'M not 'capable' of that type of life? Show some respect will ya?

[sushi]

They don't need prayers, they need proper leadership and direction.
You're joking right?!

There are 135,000 troops in Iraq right now.

Yet the media is focusing on the transgressions of a few (so far 7). These 7 make up less than 1/200th of 1 percent of the troops in Iraq.

And that figure is less if you include the troops in Afghanistan.

Sushi

[sushi]

I think that in this case we DO have a complaint. They are the means by which an illegal war and occupation is being prosecuted in Iraq.
Hmmm....why do you say this?!

Note, I am assuming that your reason is something other than the WMD.

If not, then I would respectfully suggest that you really do not have a clue as to why the US and others are there right now.

Sushi

[mactastic]

You're joking right?!

There are 135,000 troops in Iraq right now.

Yet the media is focusing on the transgressions of a few (so far 7). These 7 make up less than 1/200th of 1 percent of the troops in Iraq.

And that figure is less if you include the troops in Afghanistan.

Sushi

It only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole barrel.

[skunk]

You're joking right?!
There are 135,000 troops in Iraq right now.
Yet the media is focusing on the transgressions of a few (so far 7). These 7 make up less than 1/200th of 1 percent of the troops in Iraq.
And that figure is less if you include the troops in Afghanistan.

Sushi
Only seven? I think not. That's not what the ICRC said, that well-known bunch of left-wing propagandists. And who knows what about Afghanistan? Half the country is still off-limits, and what has been reported is equally awful. And there's always Guantanamo.
Yes, they need leadership: they need to know that your government signed up to, even co-designed, the Geneva Convention. They need to know what is acceptable and what isn't. And if General Miller tells them it's OK to sodomize the inmates, he needs to be tried for war crimes, as does the man who sent him there in the knowledge of the outrages being perpetrated in Cuba on his watch.

[Lyle]

As someone who knows many in the sandbox, and may be going there myself, I trust what they tell me rather than our press, the majority of which have hidden agendas.Send us a blog.Yes, send us a blog, but understand that if you report good news from Iraq your motivations will be questioned (just like Ben Connable, that weasel).

[mactastic]

And if you report bad news you'll be labeled a part of the 'leftist, yellow journalism' corp. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Hmmm....why do you say this?!

Note, I am assuming that your reason is something other than the WMD.

If not, then I would respectfully suggest that you really do not have a clue as to why the US and others are there right now.

Sushi
You know, or you SHOULD know, that aggressive war is against the provisions of the UN Treaty. A desire to effect regime change, as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti, is not. Nor is the killing of 10,000 civilians in Iraq and another 10,000 in Afghanistan a proportionate response to the killing of 3,000 people in New York.

[skunk]

I trust them, because I served with them. My father did, my grandfather did. My Cousins, my God Father, God Brother, God Sister. Nephew, Aunt, Uncle's, all served. My best friend serves now in Centcom. I trust them because of who they are, what they stand for and what they believe in.
That's not very encouraging, if you believe that prison abuse is hardly distinguishable from hazing.

The wall. The wall is an imaginary wall that every US solider sits on every day protecting all of those around the world that respect it, and even those that don't.
WTF are you talking about? Are you in fantasy land? There IS NO WALL. Is this the received wisdom of all those generations who served? It's worse than I thought: you're all raving mad!

I assume that since he says he is in Berlin, then, he is in Berlin, just like I assume you are actually in England. Unless you are liars, and then I guess I am wrong. Lets see, 1941 - 1989. Sorry, over 40 years. We helped keep England free for over 50 though.
So you were protecting Berlin in 1941, were you? Why? Did Adolf need you? And exactly how did "you" help keep "us" "free"? Wasn't that the Battle of Britain? You weren't even there in 1940.

[Backtothemac]

I think that in this case we DO have a complaint. They are the means by which an illegal war and occupation is being prosecuted in Iraq.

Illegal under what law Skunk. Please enlighten me.

[sushi]

Only seven? I think not. That's not what the ICRC said, that well-known bunch of left-wing propagandists. And who knows what about Afghanistan? Half the country is still off-limits, and what has been reported is equally awful. And there's always Guantanamo.
Yes, they need leadership: they need to know that your government signed up to, even co-designed, the Geneva Convention. They need to know what is acceptable and what isn't. And if General Miller tells them it's OK to sodomize the inmates, he needs to be tried for war crimes, as does the man who sent him there in the knowledge of the outrages being perpetrated in Cuba on his watch.
You can choose to believe whatever you want.

I realize that more than seven may be involved -- and expect to find more.

Make no mistake. The fact is, it happened, and that is wrong.

However, even if they find 10 times that many involved, it is still a very small part of the whole.

The way that the media makes it out, is that it is like 50% of all deployed troops in Iraq are committing these crimes. That is not the case, nor is it close to that.

Sushi

[Backtothemac]

This is not the first time people who have served in the military have tried to use their service as a lever to prove that they are 'in the right'. How would you feel if I was running around saying 'How soon those in the military forget who provides the funding for their very existance'? You think there are no other 'very demanding lives' that 'aren't for everyone'? And WTF are you dragging your brother in here for? Are you saying that by extension I'M not 'capable' of that type of life? Show some respect will ya?

OMG, can you hear? That is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying anyone is better, just different, and those that have never served tend to have an opinion of the military that shows a lack of respect. Oh, and how about running around saying "DEFEND YOUR DAMN SELF". That would be funny. I would love to see people have to defend themselves. Liberals don't want a large military because they don't trust it. As for my brother, what does he have to do with anything? I was making a point saying that he is not better or worse than those in my family that have served. Read the entire point before you hit the reply button.

[skunk]

Illegal under what law Skunk. Please enlighten me.
Why, under the UN Treaty, BTM. Incorporated into your US law, BTM.

[skunk]

You can choose to believe whatever you want.

I realize that more than seven may be involved -- and expect to find more.

Make no mistake. The fact is, it happened, and that is wrong.

However, even if they find 10 times that many involved, it is still a very small part of the whole.

The way that the media makes it out, is that it is like 50% of all deployed troops in Iraq are committing these crimes. That is not the case, nor is it close to that.

Sushi
The problem is that, far from correcting it as soon as they found it was happening, it appears that it was a policy instigated by Miller and his superiors (aka Rumsfeld, Sanchez & Co).

[Backtothemac]

That's not very encouraging, if you believe that prison abuse is hardly distinguishable from hazing.


WTF are you talking about? Are you in fantasy land? There IS NO WALL. Is this the received wisdom of all those generations who served? It's worse than I thought: you're all raving mad!


So you were protecting Berlin in 1941, were you? Why? Did Adolf need you? And exactly how did "you" help keep "us" "free"? Wasn't that the Battle of Britain? You weren't even there in 1940.

Dude, what are you talking about. I NEVER SAID THE ABUSE IS HARDLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM HAZING! What is wrong with you? I said, and I will say it again for you. There IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT. IT REMINDED ME OF PLEDGE ( THE PICTURES RELEASE SO FAR DID). There did you get it this time?

The wall, yea, they are there. Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, there used to be a big imaginary wall between western Europe and Eastern Europe, and our soldiers garded that imaginary wall for many years protecting Western Europe. As for 41, yea, we were not on the ground, but were already providing funding for England, protecting commerce, and yes, we did come in with quite a punch. Do you really think Hitler could have been defeated without the American soldier on the ground? Could Britain have launched an invasion of France without the American soldier? NO! Oh, and the battle of britain was an air war. Not the boots on the ground that win wars.

[Backtothemac]

Why, under the UN Treaty, BTM. Incorporated into your US law, BTM.

The President had permission of Congress. That is all he needs to conduct military operations. He had UN approval from Resolution 678, and 1441. The fact that the security council was blocked by two country's. Not my problem, and should not be America's problem. Thus the very basis by which the UN charter is unconsititional. The removes power from the Congress and gives it to a foriegn body. No offense, but I don't want the French, and Germans deciding US foriegn policy. Oh, and by your definition, there was a little conflict in the Balkins that went on without UN support. So, I guess we should have rounded up the President of France and Germany and tried them for war crimes for conducting an illegal war? No, because it was legal. War is a means to settle political dispute. This was wasn't illegal because it was a restart of hostilities from the first gulf war, and thus, legal.

[mactastic]

OMG, can you hear? That is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying anyone is better, just different, and those that have never served tend to have an opinion of the military that shows a lack of respect. Oh, and how about running around saying "DEFEND YOUR DAMN SELF". That would be funny. I would love to see people have to defend themselves. Liberals don't want a large military because they don't trust it. As for my brother, what does he have to do with anything? I was making a point saying that he is not better or worse than those in my family that have served. Read the entire point before you hit the reply button.

I'd be happy to defend myself. Anytime, anywhere. I've never shown any disrespect for the men and women serving honorably on a daily basis, I don't see where you get off telling me that I don't honor their service. I was posting a hypothetical counter to the poster who said we (I'm pretty sure he meant liberals) have forgotten who makes us free. I say that's BS. And there is a near-racist attitude among some towards liberals here anyway.

[zimv20]

Short answer: The 2 has a very important responsibility to provide tactical and applicable strategic intel to the commander and staff.
[chomp]
thank you.

is there any part of the intelligence officer's job which involves information exchange other than tactical or strategic?

[sushi]

thank you.

is there any part of the intelligence officer's job which involves information exchange other than tactical or strategic?
I am not sure I understand your question.

Can you be more specific?

Sushi

[skunk]

Dude, what are you talking about. I NEVER SAID THE ABUSE IS HARDLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM HAZING!
Oh yes you did:
Well, I can say this, the pictures of the Iraq "torture", I got worse than that when I was a pledge at my Fraternity.
and
There is a fine line between abuse and harsh disipline. A very thin line.
I take this to mean that in your mind they are virtually indistinguishable. If we have to apologize, it's only for PR purposes.

The wall, yea, they are there. Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, there used to be a big imaginary wall between western Europe and Eastern Europe, and our soldiers garded that imaginary wall for many years protecting Western Europe.
Ah, bless!

As for 41, yea, we were not on the ground, but were already providing funding for England, protecting commerce, and yes, we did come in with quite a punch.
At quite a price, too. But thanks anyway.

Oh, and the battle of britain was an air war. Not the boots on the ground that win wars.
It was what saved Britain from invasion. Not the US Army.

[sushi]

I was posting a hypothetical counter to the poster who said we (I'm pretty sure he meant liberals) have forgotten who makes us free. I say that's BS. And there is a near-racist attitude among some towards liberals here anyway.
Go back to school! :D

I was the one who posted that comment. See number 35.

It was directed towards countries that are free today thanks to the good ole USA and her allies.

I never once mentioned liberals, or conservatives for that matter, in my post. Talk about jumping to conclusions! :eek:

Sushi

[skunk]

Go back to school! :D

I was the one who posted that comment. See number 35.

It was directed towards countries that are free today thanks to the good ole USA and her allies.

I never once mentioned liberals, or conservatives for that matter, in my post. Talk about jumping to conclusions! :eek:

Sushi
You may not have mentioned them, but I notice your post has plenty of space between the lines....

[sushi]

It was what saved Britain from invasion. Not the US Army.
Uh, don't think so. But I will leave that to you historian types to argue.

BTW, there were Canadians and Americans who flew for/with the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Sushi

[sushi]

You may not have mentioned them, but I notice your post has plenty of space between the lines....
Talk about jumping to conclusions!

You've got to be kidding! Right?!

Sushi

[skunk]

Uh, don't think so. But I will leave that to you historian types to argue.

BTW, there were Canadians and Americans who flew for/with the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Sushi
Sure. Brave guys.

[zimv20]

I am not sure I understand your question.

Can you be more specific?

yes - is propaganda part of their job?

[Sayhey]

Uh, don't think so. But I will leave that to you historian types to argue.

BTW, there were Canadians and Americans who flew for/with the RAF during the Battle of Britain.

Sushi

If you don't think so, it is you who should go back and read a little history of the war.

In the last decade or so there is a growing trend to distort the history of WWII by enhancing the role of the US. This includes ignoring the Eastern Front altogether, making the resistance of those under Nazi occupation seem insignificant, and making the contributions of others, like the United Kingdom, into US accomplishments.

I don't take second place to anyone in my admiration of my father's generation, but they don't need distortions and lies to justify their place in history.

[Backtothemac]

Oh yes you did:
Well, I can say this, the pictures of the Iraq "torture", I got worse than that when I was a pledge at my Fraternity.
and
There is a fine line between abuse and harsh disipline. A very thin line.
I take this to mean that in your mind they are virtually indistinguishable. If we have to apologize, it's only for PR purposes.
Ah, bless!
At quite a price, too. But thanks anyway.
It was what saved Britain from invasion. Not the US Army.

Ok, I will try to put this to bed for you skunk. Some of the pictures of the Iraqi abuse, yes, I got worse when I was a pledge. There, I said it. Does that condone it, defend it? No. And there is a fine line between abuse and disipline IN BASIC TRAINING! DON'T TWIST MY WORDS TO FIT YOUR ARGUEMENT!

Oh, and you can thank Hitler for being stupid enough to launch a second front against Russia. That is what saved Britain. That and Britain is an Island. Britian has not been invaded by land since the Battle of Hastings in 1066. It wasn't Britain's might, or the US's help. But Hitler's stupidity. Now, I am not taking away from the Bravery of the people of your country. They fought with honor, and I have the utmost respect for them, and the pains they went through. Oh, and my grandfathers brother flew with the RAF during the battle of britain.

[sushi]

The problem is that, far from correcting it as soon as they found it was happening, it appears that it was a policy instigated by Miller and his superiors (aka Rumsfeld, Sanchez & Co).
You are reading into things to support your case. Yes, we all tend to do it. Unfortunately, that leads to more confusion and getting farther away from the truth.

Rather, I would suggest that we rely on the facts, vice conjecture that seems to be pontificating itself these days.

Let's wait and see what the result of the inquiries are before we jump to conclusions. You know, innocent until proven guilty?! ;)

Unless of course you believe the press and what they say, then everybody is guilty as charge -- all without due process for the individuals concerned.

Sushi

[poopyhead]

If you don't think so, it is you who should go back and read a little history of the war.

In the last decade or so there is a growing trend to distort the history of WWII by enhancing the role of the US. This includes ignoring the Eastern Front altogether, making the resistance of those under Nazi occupation seem insignificant, and making the contributions of others, like the United Kingdom, into US accomplishments.

I don't take second place to anyone in my admiration of my father's generation, but they don't need distortions and lies to justify their place in history.

I agree completely
the US has seemingly forgotten about Russia's participation in WWII and their millions (I believe over 5 million lives lost)
however
skunks seeming assertion that the US had no part in winning WWII or that the US did not provide much needed protection and supplies for Great Britain is equally asinine
we may not have lost nearly as many people but we certainly played a major part

[zimv20]

Oh, and you can thank Hitler for being stupid enough to launch a second front against Russia. That is what saved Britain.
as i understand it, hitler's generals drew up plans to go straight into moscow, but hitler overruled them and started no less than 3 major fronts in russia, eventually costing him the war. lucky for us hitler was a poor military strategist.

[sushi]

yes - is propaganda part of their job?
Are you asking if the MI officer's job is to BS the US population or the polititions. The answers is an emphatic no.

Are you asking if the MI officer's job is to assist in the creation of plans to BS the enemy about troop strengths, ongoing operations, and future operations, then the answer is yes.

Are you asking if the MI officer's job is to interface directly with the local populace in a positve manner to break down barriers of communication and cultural differences? Then the answer is no. The Civil Affairs officer does this. This role was deemed so important, that a few years ago, a specifc branch was created for Civil Affairs.

Sushi

[zimv20]

Are you asking if the MI officer's job is to BS the US population or the polititions. The answers is an emphatic no.

Are you asking if the MI officer's job is to assist in the creation of plans to BS the enemy about troop strengths, ongoing operations, and future operations, then the answer is yes.

i'm suggesting that if the latter is true, then the former isn't much of a stretch.

[sushi]

i'm suggesting that if the latter is true, then the former isn't much of a stretch.
Then you don't have a clue. Sorry.

Sushi

[poopyhead]

Then you don't have a clue. Sorry.

Sushi

in a world of global media coverage and 24 hour news
you would have to bamboozel the US population in order to effectively bamboozel the Iraqi population
it might not be the primary goal but it is certainly a sensible and direct outcome of it

[sushi]

in a world of global media coverage and 24 hour news
you would have to bamboozel the US population in order to effectively bamboozel the Iraqi population
it might not be the primary goal but it is certainly a sensible and direct outcome of it
Again, you folks do not have a clue.

Nor did you even attempt to understand what I was talking about.

Rather, you want to pontificate your own distorted ideas that fall far from the truth.

So be it. I can easily see that my time is being wasted here.

See ya!

Sushi

[zimv20]

Then you don't have a clue. Sorry.

really? i kinda feel like i rather do.

i'm not certain why it's such an impossibility that an intelligence officer would be asked to write a letter saying the war is going swimmingly. certainly, there are departments in the pentagon that do this, is it so strange that an officer trained in deception would be asked to participate?

if i had asked you six months ago if it was possible that grunt soldiers would be commanded to inflict torture techniques on iraqi prisoners, would you have said then that i was clueless?

[jelloshotsrule]

At least Clinton didn't murder anyone or give permission for someone to be tortured... :rolleyes:

oh man... as much as i dislike the bush admin, and the war, etc etc etc... surely you don't think clinton was some great hero..

how about bombing medicine manufacturing plants in sudan???? it's an environmental nightmare now. not to mention wiping out plants that i believe were making some very important drugs for the people of the country.

there was also that guy that suddenly "disappeared" who had some dirt on clinton....

you're kidding yourself if you think clinton has no blood on his hands.

[skunk]

skunks seeming assertion that the US had no part in winning WWII or that the US did not provide much needed protection and supplies for Great Britain is equally asinine
we may not have lost nearly as many people but we certainly played a major part
Where on earth did you find that assertion? I pointed out that it was the Battle of Britain which prevented Hitler attempting invasion. Nothing more. Of course the US played a major part in WWII, as did the Russians. Without you (and them) it would have been virtually impossible to defeat Germany (and Japan). Please do not judge me by words I did not post. :rolleyes:

[krimson]

Got this as a forward a few days ago, thought i'd throw it in the fray

-----------------
From: Ben Connable
Subject: Reorienting and Driving Forward

As you all probably know by now, we are turning Fallujah over to the Iraqis. This will give us an opportunity to focus on other areas, and hopefully to build a new Iraqi Army with some of the folks that are feeling alienated right now. We're all painfully aware of the various issues associated with this move, but there's no point in discussing them. We'll make this work, just like we make everything else work to the best of our ability. The Marines fought hard in Fallujah and took a lot of very evil people out of the fight. That effort, and the associated loss of Marine lives, was not in vain. We're already seeing a significant decrease in the enemy's ability to attack our forces. The supply lines are open again and everything is flowing freely through the country. Their efforts to cut us of in order to break our willpower failed. The Iraqi people are tired of the enemy and they are turning them over to us left and right.

I'm going to discuss a subject that I know does not apply to most of you... We're reading that everyone back home is starting to lose faith in our efforts in Iraq. The last CBS poll put the numbers under 50% for the first time. I know that doesn't mean a loss in support for the troops, but supporting "the troops" while not supporting the mission doesn't do much for us. If we're over here for nothing then vague "support the troops" statements carry little weight. The Marines are in high spirits. The troops in Fallujah are doing what Marines do best, and they're true professionals. Everyone else is driving forward, wondering what all the fuss back home is all about. We don't feel that we're losing anything - in fact, we're finally addressing issues that should have been addressed some time ago. The world seems to have forgotten what war looks like. It's not supposed to be pretty and happy. Force is used to kill those who are perpetrating evil on the people of Iraq. The images need to be put in perspective, something the news agencies just don't have time for.

It would be interesting to see someone track all the dire accounts and predictions that were issued over the past three weeks to see if they've been accurate. I read reports that we were cut off and couldn't get supplies. Reality: Not true, they failed. A popular revolution was taking place in the south and Sadr was leading a new Shia revolt. Reality: Not true. Shia militia are killing Sadr's folks in Najaf because they don't respect him and they're sick of him. He's the same buffoon he was last month. Fallujah would ignite the Arab world (how many times have we heard that one). Reality: Despite the best efforts of Al-Jazira to make us look like Atilla the Hun, there has been no explosion of populist anger. The same problems exist that existed last month - no better, no worse.

Please pass the word that we're doing great and the Marines are victorious in every battle. The enemy is a disconcerted, disparate group of disenfranchised dissemblers who have little power outside the realm of localized intimidation and the support of complicit al-Jazira reporters. We will be able to settle this place down and help the Iraqi people back on their feet if we're able to ignore the hysteria on T.V. and recall the national willpower we had in the 1940's. What happened to our country? Have we really become so addled and weak-willed that we can't stick something out through a little rough patch?

I have faith that we'll get the backing we need to finish our work in Iraq.

Please have that faith with me and support our mission as much as you support our Marines.

Semper Fidelis -

Ben
----------------------

[Frohickey]

Unless you are liars, and then I guess I am wrong. Lets see, 1941 - 1989. Sorry, over 40 years. We helped keep England free for over 50 though.

"I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day, and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off." :D :p :D

[Frohickey]

Suffice it to say, the media misses a lot of what is going on. Rather they focus on what sells. In this case the actions of a few (7 for sure) rather than the rest of the 135,000 military in Iraq and the ones in Afganistan.

Let's see, 7 out of 135,000 is what, about 1/200th of one percent!

Granted what they did was wrong. And they will pay for what they did wrong (rightfully so) even while the war is going on.


Yeah, the media has used this 'trap' often. And the people that read the news have falled for this trap time and time again. Use the misdeeds of a few in order to question the morals of the whole. They use it to characterize politicians (both, R's & D's). They use it on lawyers. They use it on CEOs of large corporations. They used it on gun owners. They are using it on members of the military.

Falling for this trap means you are not doing your part. Critical thinking is a skill, just like any other, and it has to be practiced in order to get better at it. When you are always 'emoting' with the news being presented, you are not thinking critically.

[skunk]

"I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day, and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off." :D :p :D
Is that funny?

[Frohickey]

Yeah you're right, those of us not in the military should just shut up and let the 'real Americans' handle things. :rolleyes:

You could volunteer to be a chemical weapons inspector.

[skunk]

You could volunteer to be a chemical weapons inspector.
You should get that rash of unfunny jokes looked at...

[Frohickey]

It amazes me the lack of respect that those who don't serve, or have never serve have towards the military. To a group of people they have never met, and have no legitimate complaint with. It is almost a racist attitude. My brother never served. Because it isn't in him. He is not capable of that type of life. Is he scum for it. Hell no, it isn't for everyone. That is why NOT everyone goes into the military. It is a very demanding life, not only for the soldier, but for their family as well. Show a little respect will ya.

BTTM, chill out.

I categorize the ones that don't have respect for the military, as the same ones that don't have respect for the police or firefighters. Yes, I am stereotyping, but the ones that are prone to protest against police for shooting a mountain lion in Palo Alto, CA are also the first ones to demand an investigation for the missing dogs/cats/small children, and what the police are doing about it.

If this country were to be attacked again, they would be the ones that would be protesting why GWBush 'allowed' us to be attacked again.

If you think you can do better, then show us how to do it. Put up or shut up.

[Frohickey]

It only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole barrel.

I thought that it was 'It only takes half a worm to ruin an apple." :eek: :D :p

Or was that "It only takes Bill Gates to ruin Apple." Or was it Gil Amelio?

[Frohickey]

And if you report bad news you'll be labeled a part of the 'leftist, yellow journalism' corp. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... :rolleyes:

Lets see. On another thread, I listed a blog that presented good news and people were complaining that it belonged in the Politics section instead of the Current Events section. That sure sounds like someone trying to hide good news that *IS* Current Events. I don't remember seeing anyone complaining about bad news about Iraq being put in Current Events.

News is news is news. If its fact, let it be treated as fact. Let it stand on its own merits. We don't need the echo chamber of the media to put attention to the bad news. Same as we don't need the cone of silence from the media to suppress the good news.

[Frohickey]

OMG, can you hear? That is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying anyone is better, just different, and those that have never served tend to have an opinion of the military that shows a lack of respect. Oh, and how about running around saying "DEFEND YOUR DAMN SELF". That would be funny. I would love to see people have to defend themselves. Liberals don't want a large military because they don't trust it. As for my brother, what does he have to do with anything? I was making a point saying that he is not better or worse than those in my family that have served. Read the entire point before you hit the reply button.

BTTM, you need to excuse mactastic. He failed Reading Comprehension... he was out sick with the measles. :eek: :p :p

[Frohickey]

I was posting a hypothetical counter to the poster who said we (I'm pretty sure he meant liberals) have forgotten who makes us free. I say that's BS. And there is a near-racist attitude among some towards liberals here anyway.

Liberal is not a race. A race is something that you are, and can't change no matter what you do, or what someone else does to you. (Michael Jackson, excluded, of course.)

A liberal can change. All you have to do is get mugged. :p :p :p

[zimv20]

A liberal can change. All you have to do is get mugged. :p :p :p
i've been mugged already

[carbonmotion]

I trust them, because I served with them. My father did, my grandfather did. My Cousins, my God Father, God Brother, God Sister. Nephew, Aunt, Uncle's, all served. My best friend serves now in Centcom. I trust them because of who they are, what they stand for and what they believe in. The wall. The wall is an imaginary wall that every US solider sits on every day protecting all of those around the world that respect it, and even those that don't. You are letting the actions of a few cloud your opinion of the military. I assume that since he says he is in Berlin, then, he is in Berlin, just like I assume you are actually in England. Unless you are liars, and then I guess I am wrong. Lets see, 1941 - 1989. Sorry, over 40 years. We helped keep England free for over 50 though. You didn't serve with that perticular guy did you? So you don't know him personaliy and therefore can't vouch for his ideologies. He's a marine Spook, what do you think he's going to say? Everything is going to the ****s? We should pull out? ...No, by writing tis moral booster, he's fighting for his country on the home front. This is propaganda directed at the citizens pure and simple. And before you think I'm some hippie liberal trying to ruin your day, try this one on for size. I applied and was accepted in to the USAF acadamy in colorado... ended up not going because it really didn't fit with plans that I have for the future... but I considered it. And while I am left-middle in my ideological stance, I have many friends in the military. My point being, you and your family are an honest one that served and defended our country in its time of need ...yet, that doesnt dispel the fact that there are many many not as honerable people in the military specifically to do the not so honerable things that a government would need in the time of war. Like, violating the geneva or lying to the people both abroad and domestically. Every branch of the service has their INTEL branch with people trainned to do not-so-moral operations... eventually the best of the best ends up working for the CIA or some other potemac spook center.

[Backtothemac]

BTTM, chill out.

I categorize the ones that don't have respect for the military, as the same ones that don't have respect for the police or firefighters. Yes, I am stereotyping, but the ones that are prone to protest against police for shooting a mountain lion in Palo Alto, CA are also the first ones to demand an investigation for the missing dogs/cats/small children, and what the police are doing about it.

If this country were to be attacked again, they would be the ones that would be protesting why GWBush 'allowed' us to be attacked again.

If you think you can do better, then show us how to do it. Put up or shut up.

Um, two things. 1, I agree with you. 2, it wasn't directed at you. So I have put up by serving this country in the military, and the government, so I won't shut up ;)

[carbonmotion]

Liberal is not a race. A race is something that you are, and can't change no matter what you do, or what someone else does to you. (Michael Jackson, excluded, of course.)

A liberal can change. All you have to do is get mugged. :p :p :p While some moderate conservatives I'd follow whole heartedly like john mccain, but the extremist ones like G. W. Bush who seems to think he can impose his religious views on america as well as blatantly wage his own private war with our public army makes me want to vomit. The hard working people of america deserve better then have their take money squandered by a billion dollar playboy who wants to play tin soldier with real men and lives. I'm sorry, but shame on the republican party for even having picked such a weak subject as CANIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. Bush's cohorts or no better human beings, Like donald --Uncle Rummy's Coming to Give You a Texas Lead Enema! A professional polical survrior he will do anything to serve his boss and keep his power... the guy surved under nixon for god sake.

[blackfox]

Why, under the UN Treaty, BTM. Incorporated into your US law, BTM.
Well, I seem to have missed one hell of a "discussion" here...although late to the party, I would add to Skunks' quote above (re: the potential illegality of the war), with a link to another thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=72319
This is more concerning potential war crimes/illegality in the methodology in which the US has waged war, than the illegality of the war itself...please see posts #10 and #11 (I warn, they are long)...I hasten to add, this is not meant to reflect poorly on the fighting men and women on the ground (whom I admire), but to those in charge with policy...take as you will

[skunk]

I categorize the ones that don't have respect for the military, as the same ones that don't have respect for the police or firefighters.
The military get plenty of respect when they are defending our interests. Sadly, the military in this case have been hijacked to serve the political agenda of a power-crazed elite. What have the fire-fighters and police got to do with anything?

If you think you can do better, then show us how to do it. Put up or shut up.
Sophisticated argument. Better would have been not to launch an illegal war and occupation.

Clausewitz said: "War is a continuation of politics by other means", not "war is a substitute for politics when you can't be bothered to make an honest argument".

[poopyhead]

Where on earth did you find that assertion? Please do not judge me by words I did not post. :rolleyes:

Good point,
Sorry

[skunk]

Good point,
Sorry
'S cool. :)

[Frohickey]

Um, two things. 1, I agree with you. 2, it wasn't directed at you. So I have put up by serving this country in the military, and the government, so I won't shut up ;)

Hehehe... actually, only the first sentence was addressed to you. The rest was my characterization of what the other contrarian posts are all about.

The "Put up or shut up" comment, I'm sure others have heard when they complain that something is not being done right. No one likes a backseat driver.

[skunk]

The "Put up or shut up" comment, I'm sure others have heard when they complain that something is not being done right. No one likes a backseat driver.
No passenger likes being driven off a cliff...

[Frohickey]

While some moderate conservatives I'd follow whole heartedly like john mccain, but the extremist ones like G. W. Bush who seems to think he can impose his religious views on america as well as blatantly wage his own private war with our public army makes me want to vomit. The hard working people of america deserve better then have their take money squandered by a billion dollar playboy who wants to play tin soldier with real men and lives. I'm sorry, but shame on the republican party for even having picked such a weak subject as CANIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. Bush's cohorts or no better human beings, Like donald --Uncle Rummy's Coming to Give You a Texas Lead Enema! A professional polical survrior he will do anything to serve his boss and keep his power... the guy surved under nixon for god sake.

What religious views has he imposed? Billion dollar playboy? Last I heard, it was John McStain that is on the 2nd wife. As for GWBush being a conservative, I don't think so. McCain is not a moderate, he's a RINO.

[skunk]

What religious views has he imposed? Billion dollar playboy? Last I heard, it was John McStain that is on the 2nd wife. As for GWBush being a conservative, I don't think so. McCain is not a moderate, he's a RINO.
"God TOLD me to smite the heathen" (slight paraphrase of GW)

Is being married twice how you become a playboy? I didn't know it was that easy.

[carbonmotion]

"God TOLD me to smite the heathen" (slight paraphrase of GW)

Is being married twice how you become a playboy? I didn't know it was that easy. Agreed and Agreed... And if you read any of bushes' speech transcripts, it would seem like he's the second coming of the meisah. The guys is self-righteous and full of himself.

[zimv20]

I applied and was accepted in to the USAF acadamy in colorado
i was halfway through the process when my sponsoring congressman died. i took that as a sign and went to a "normal" university.

[carbonmotion]

i was halfway through the process when my sponsoring congressman died. i took that as a sign and went to a "normal" university. Wow really? Did you have any pressure from your parents at all?

[Rower_CPU]

i was halfway through the process when my sponsoring congressman died. i took that as a sign and went to a "normal" university.

Wow, lots of AF Academy "almost rans" in here:

I had the grades, the appointment and passed the physical, but failed a breathing test that targeted the asthma I used to have.

[sushi]

I applied and was accepted in to the USAF acadamy in colorado... ended up not going because it really didn't fit with plans that I have for the future... but I considered it.
Good for you! That is quite an accomplishment.

I respect your point about having other plans in the future.

However, applying vice actually attending and graducating are two completely different things. So please don't kid yourself that you would have automatically graduated just because you were accepted.

Sushi

[carbonmotion]

Good for you! That is quite an accomplishment.

I respect your point about having other plans in the future.

However, applying vice actually attending and graducating are two completely different things. So please don't kid yourself that you would have automatically graduated just because you were accepted.

Sushi point taken

[Frohickey]

"God TOLD me to smite the heathen" (slight paraphrase of GW)

Is being married twice how you become a playboy? I didn't know it was that easy.

McCain, who divorced his wife of close to 15 years in 1980 (http://www.hillnews.com/news/051904/marriage.aspx), is chairman of the Commerce Committee, which last week held a subcommittee hearing on the impact of marriage and divorce on children. McCain remarried a year after his divorce to his current wife of 25 years.

[carbonmotion]

McCain, who divorced his wife of close to 15 years in 1980 (http://www.hillnews.com/news/051904/marriage.aspx), is chairman of the Commerce Committee, which last week held a subcommittee hearing on the impact of marriage and divorce on children. McCain remarried a year after his divorce to his current wife of 25 years. So?

[Neserk]

The President had permission of Congress. That is all he needs to conduct military operations. He had UN approval from Resolution 678, and 1441. The fact that the security council was blocked by two country's. Not my problem, and should not be America's problem. Thus the very basis by which the UN charter is unconsititional. The removes power from the Congress and gives it to a foriegn body. .

Lets try this:

BUSH LIED.

That is what makes this war illegal. He lied to everyone. Some of us knew all along, some figured it out recently. Some are still in denial.

[Neserk]

oh man... as much as i dislike the bush admin, and the war, etc etc etc... surely you don't think clinton was some great hero..



COntext is everything ;) My comment was made when someone was trying to compare Clinton's lie about an affair with a lie that led to the death of 12,000 and counting...

[Neserk]

Again, you folks do not have a clue.


Sadly, we are the ones with a clue...

[sushi]

Sadly, we are the ones with a clue...
Not even close.

Then again, from your perspective you think know everything.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Sushi

[skunk]

Not even close.

Then again, from your perspective you think know everything.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Sushi
I thought you'd gone. Pity. You're not contributing much to the debate, are you?

[sushi]

I thought you'd gone. Pity. You're not contributing much to the debate, are you?
Just following your lead! :D

[carbonmotion]

STOP... this is just turning in to a bicker. Both of you try to make some substantive arguments backed up facts. Thanks.

[skunk]

STOP... this is just turning in to a bicker. Both of you try to make some substantive arguments backed up facts. Thanks.
Oops! Sorry! :rolleyes:
I'll try to behave. :o

[LethalWolfe]

STOP... this is just turning in to a bicker. Both of you try to make some substantive arguments backed up facts. Thanks.

What? What was that? Sounded like carbonmotion bringing on the smack down. :D


Lethal

[mactastic]

Liberal is not a race. A race is something that you are, and can't change no matter what you do, or what someone else does to you. (Michael Jackson, excluded, of course.)

A liberal can change. All you have to do is get mugged. :p :p :p

And a soldier is a race? Get off it Frohickey. Or do I get under your skin so bad you just have to say something asinine every time I post? :D :D :D

[pseudobrit]

Liberals don't want a large military because they don't trust it.

Neither did the Founding Fathers. Those damned liberals.

[carbonmotion]

I swear if Iraq turns in to another vietnam, I'm going to say I told you so 50x on this forum in bold print.

[pseudobrit]

Then you don't have a clue. Sorry...

...Again, you folks do not have a clue...

So be it. I can easily see that my time is being wasted here.

See ya!

Good riddance. If you cannot communicate your ideas clearly enough to change our minds and must resort to giving us the simple "you don't know ****" type argument, you can take your condescending attitude elsewhere.

[pseudobrit]

BTTM, chill out.

I categorize the ones that don't have respect for the military, as the same ones that don't have respect for the police or firefighters. Yes, I am stereotyping, but the ones that are prone to protest against police for shooting a mountain lion in Palo Alto, CA are also the first ones to demand an investigation for the missing dogs/cats/small children, and what the police are doing about it.

If this country were to be attacked again, they would be the ones that would be protesting why GWBush 'allowed' us to be attacked again.

If you think you can do better, then show us how to do it. Put up or shut up.

This elitist horse**** really rubs me the wrong way. I did not serve in the military. The military will not take me because of a lung disease I have that does not keep me from playing ice hockey at some of the highest levels accessible to an amateur but keeps me from volunteering for the service.

My grandfather served in the Marines in the Pacific during World War 2. Several of my uncles served during or shortly afterward, one during the Berlin airlift, one as an intelligence officer, others during Korea and Vietnam.
My father enlisted and served during Vietnam.

My brother is in Kirkuk.

My family has and is "putting up" so that I can enjoy the freedom to speak out. So that we all can have freedoms. Using those freedoms to speak out against those who would adopt the military as a political tool is not a disservice to the military, it's a tribute to the freedom they protect. They serve under the flag so that we are free to burn it.

Don't you ****ing tell me to shut up, Frohickey. Don't you dare even insinuate that my opinion is not valid because it is at odds with your militarised version. The same goes for sushi and BTTM.

Just because you have served doesn't mean you've earned the right to tell those who haven't to shut up.

[Backtothemac]

Neither did the Founding Fathers. Those damned liberals.

Great to see you in on this! :P

You are right they did not, but granted, the world today is much different than in 1787

[Backtothemac]

This elitist horse**** really rubs me the wrong way. I did not serve in the military. The military will not take me because of a lung disease I have that does not keep me from playing ice hockey at some of the highest levels accessible to an amateur but keeps me from volunteering for the service.

My grandfather served in the Marines in the Pacific during World War 2. Several of my uncles served during or shortly afterward, one during the Berlin airlift, one as an intelligence officer, others during Korea and Vietnam.
My father enlisted and served during Vietnam.

My brother is in Kirkuk.

My family has and is "putting up" so that I can enjoy the freedom to speak out. So that we all can have freedoms. Using those freedoms to speak out against those who would adopt the military as a political tool is not a disservice to the military, it's a tribute to the freedom they protect. They serve under the flag so that we are free to burn it.

Don't you ****ing tell me to shut up, Frohickey. Don't you dare even insinuate that my opinion is not valid because it is at odds with your militarised version. The same goes for sushi and BTTM.

Just because you have served doesn't mean you've earned the right to tell those who haven't to shut up.


What? Why are you lumping me into that? I agree with you. All I said was those that have not served who automatically hate the military are petty. Like the kid that can't play football that then has to insult every jock you know.

Dude, you are 100% dead on.

[Backtothemac]

Lets try this:

BUSH LIED.

That is what makes this war illegal. He lied to everyone. Some of us knew all along, some figured it out recently. Some are still in denial.

Oh, can you get off of that arguement. For real man. So, the world lied? The UN lied? Clinton lied? Please. Either Saddam had them (that is what I think) or he did not, and HE LIED, and Bush called his bluff.

The Bush lied line is a played out as Clinton lied.

It reminds me of the people that say "thank God Bush is in office, because Gore would have ****ed this up" BULL ****! After 9/11. I will bet you my entire salary for the year that Clinton would have gone into Iraq, and the republicans would be attacking the dems the same way the dems are now attacking Bush.

[pseudobrit]

What? Why are you lumping me into that? I agree with you. All I said was those that have not served who automatically hate the military are petty. Like the kid that can't play football that then has to insult every jock you know.

Dude, you are 100% dead on.

What about those who have served who automatically discount those who have not? That's the sentiment I was addressing. I'm sorry if I lumped you in and you didn't make such an insinuation earlier in this thread.

[pseudobrit]

Oh, can you get off of that arguement. For real man. So, the world lied? The UN lied? Clinton lied? Please. Either Saddam had them (that is what I think) or he did not, and HE LIED, and Bush called his bluff.

The Bush lied line is a played out as Clinton lied.

It reminds me of the people that say "thank God Bush is in office, because Gore would have ****ed this up" BULL ****! After 9/11. I will bet you my entire salary for the year that Clinton would have gone into Iraq, and the republicans would be attacking the dems the same way the dems are now attacking Bush.

The difference between Clinton's lies and Bush's lies are light-years apart in ramifications.

If Clinton or Gore were President during the terrorist attacks, I doubt we would have gone to war with Iraq. This war is a misguided personal or ideological (or both) vendetta.

[sushi]

I swear if Iraq turns in to another vietnam, I'm going to say I told you so 50x on this forum in bold print.
Understand your concern.

However, this war is being conducted much differently than the Vietnam conflict.

We may be there for a while, I don't think that it will turn into the type of situation that Vietnam was. The issue at hand is not necessarily Iraq, but rather the war on terrorism which is worldwide and not confined to one location.

By taking the war to Afghanistan and Iraq, we are confronting them directly rather than waiting for them to conduct operations on our own soil like they did during 911.

Sushi

[pseudobrit]

By taking the war to Afghanistan and Iraq, we are confronting them directly rather than waiting for them to conduct operations on our own soil like they did during 911.

Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia then? That's their base of operations and funding.

[Neserk]

The Bush lied line is a played out as Clinton lied.


:eek: How can you even compare the two? OMG!

Bush deliberately deceived Congress, the UK, and attempted to decieve the UN in order to go to war. Now 12,000 people are DEAD because of his lies and you compare that to Clinton lying about an affair????

This war is illegal because BUSH LIED! This isn't a cigar and stained dress! This DEAD PEOPLE. YIKES!

[sushi]

Good riddance. If you cannot communicate your ideas clearly enough to change our minds and must resort to giving us the simple "you don't know ****" type argument, you can take your condescending attitude elsewhere.
I like lively two way debate.

When I departed last night/early morning, I was tired of hearing the same one way blurbs by a few folks on this board who were not engaged in discussion, but rather just saying the same thing over and over again. And in some cases, jumping to conclusions with minimal information about the subject at hand.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have close friends in the sandbox right now, and some who have returned recently. So I've had the opportunity to hear first hand what is going on vice only relying on CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. And I've received some official briefings as well.

Then again, what do I know after being involved with the military and serving around the world for over 25 years?!

I guess nothing. :eek:

Sushi

[Neserk]

I like lively two way debate.

When I departed last night/early morning, I was tired of hearing the same one way blurbs by a few folks on this board who were not engaged in discussion, but rather just saying the same thing over and over again. And in some cases, jumping to conclusions with minimal information about the subject at hand.

Like I said in an earlier post, I have close friends in the sandbox right now, and some who have returned recently. So I've had the opportunity to hear first hand what is going on vice only relying on CNN, BBC, Fox, etc. And I've received some official briefings as well.

Then again, what do I know after being involved with the military and serving around the world for over 25 years?!

I guess nothing. :eek:

Sushi

Unfortunately all of your "expertise" may well be blinders on your eyes. I'm afraid that from a psychological standpoint it would be nearly impossible for you to view the situation objectively.

[sushi]

Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia then? That's their base of operations and funding.
Good point. I would imagine other factors come in to play regarding SA. Additionally, SA is not the only country that has/is supported/financed terrorist operations.

Well, I would like to stay and discuss, but I'm off to some antiterrorism training.

Later,

Sushi

[sushi]

Unfortunately all of your "expertise" may well be blinders on your eyes. I'm afraid that from a psychological standpoint it would be nearly impossible for you to view the situation objectively.
Understand and respect where you are coming from.

Then again, I may have been exposed to information that you haven't, which gives me a totally different more complete picture of the situation.

Sushi

[Neserk]

Understand and respect where you are coming from.

Then again, I may have been exposed to information that you haven't, which gives me a totally different more complete picture of the situation.

Sushi

That was Bush's claim, too.

[carbonmotion]

BTM, here is the thing... If you want to invade a country you must have solid evidence that can be publicly examined... Bush did not. However, what is even more troubling is that he can not even produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction after the fact. So the war is not legal... however that said, we poop our pants now we have to clean it up. I support the troops because if I do not wish to see a withdraw at this point... At any rate, this situation would hardly be so messy if Bush had not intiated the world without global support.

[carbonmotion]

Understand and respect where you are coming from.

Then again, I may have been exposed to information that you haven't, which gives me a totally different more complete picture of the situation.

Sushi Wait let me guess, you're a field operative in the CIA who's writing to us now. LIVE FROM THE FIELD GUYS! Yeah right. The "I may have been exposed to information that you haven't" line is a pathetic attempt at covering up the fact that you have no other way to defend this illegal exercise in international relations.

[Neserk]

we poop our pants now we have to clean it up.


which should include an impeachment and conviction of the one who overloaded us on laxatives.


I support the troops because if I do not wish to see a withdraw at this point... At any rate, this situation would hardly be so messy if Bush had not intiated the world without global support.

Getting out isn't going to be easy. But, in light of the abuse scandal it is hard to determine if our being there at all has any point.

[Neserk]

Wait let me guess, you're a field operative in the CIA who's writing to us now. LIVE FROM THE FIELD GUYS! Yeah right. The "I may have been exposed to information that you haven't" line is a pathetic attempt at covering up the fact that you have no other way to defend this illegal exercise in international relations.

Kinda like Georgie? :D

[skunk]

I swear if Iraq turns in to another vietnam, I'm going to say I told you so 50x on this forum in bold print.
You know it doesn't count towards your posts, don't you? :D

[skunk]

Another "awesome article". Just for balance. :)

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/21/opinion/21HERB.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
May 21, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

'Gooks' to 'Hajis'
By BOB HERBERT


The hapless Jeremy Sivits got the headlines yesterday. A mechanic whose job was to service gasoline-powered generators, Specialist Sivits was sentenced to a year in prison and thrown out of the Army for accepting an invitation to take part in the sadistic treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

But there's another soldier in serious trouble to whom we should be paying even closer attention. His case doesn't just call into question the treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces. It calls into question this entire abominable war.

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia is a 28-year-old member of the Florida National Guard who served six harrowing months in Iraq, went home to Miami on a furlough last October, and then refused to return to his unit when the furlough ended.

Sergeant Mejia has been charged with desertion. His court-martial at Fort Stewart, Ga., began Wednesday, the same day that Specialist Sivits pleaded guilty to the charges against him. If Sergeant Mejia is convicted, he will face a similar punishment, a year in prison and a bad-conduct discharge.

Sergeant Mejia told me in a long telephone interview this week that he had qualms about the war from the beginning but he followed his orders and went to Iraq in April 2003. He led an infantry squad and saw plenty of action. But the more he thought about the war — including the slaughter of Iraqi civilians, the mistreatment of prisoners (which he personally witnessed), the killing of children, the cruel deaths of American G.I.'s (some of whom are the targets of bounty hunters in search of a reported $2,000 per head), the ineptitude of inexperienced, glory-hunting military officers who at times are needlessly putting U.S. troops in even greater danger, and the growing rage among coalition troops against all Iraqis (known derisively as "hajis," the way the Vietnamese were known as "gooks") — the more he thought about these things, the more he felt that this war could not be justified, and that he could no longer be part of it.

Sergeant Mejia's legal defense is complex (among other things, he is seeking conscientious objector status), but his essential point is that war is too terrible to be waged willy-nilly, that there must always be an ethically or morally sound reason for opening the spigots to such horror. And he believes that threshold was never met in Iraq.

"Imagine being in the infantry in Ramadi, like we were," he said, "where you get shot at every day and you get mortared where you live, [and attacked] with R.P.G.'s [rocket-propelled grenades], and people are dying and getting wounded and maimed every day. A lot of horrible things become acceptable."

He spoke about a friend of his, a sniper, who he said had shot a child about 10 years old who was carrying an automatic weapon. "He realized it was a kid," said Sergeant Mejia. "The kid tried to get up. He shot him again."

The child died.

All you really want to do in such an environment, said Sergeant Mejia, is "get out of there alive." So soldiers will do things under that kind of extreme stress that they wouldn't do otherwise.

"You just sort of try to block out the fact that they're human beings and see them as enemies," he said. "You call them hajis, you know? You do all the things that make it easier to deal with killing them and mistreating them."

When there is time later to reflect on what has happened, said Sergeant Mejia, "you come face to face with your emotions and your feelings and you try to tell yourself that you did it for a good reason. And if you don't find it, if you don't believe you did it for a good reason, then, you know, it becomes pretty tough to accept it — to willingly be a part of the war."

A military court will decide whether Sergeant Mejia, who served honorably while he was in Iraq, is a deserter or a conscientious objector or something in between. But the issues he has raised deserve a close reading by the nation as a whole, which is finally beginning to emerge from the fog of deliberate misrepresentations created by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. about this war.

The truth is the antidote to that crowd. Whatever the outcome of Sergeant Mejia's court-martial, he has made a contribution to the truth about Iraq.

I know which version I believe.

[jelloshotsrule]

COntext is everything ;) My comment was made when someone was trying to compare Clinton's lie about an affair with a lie that led to the death of 12,000 and counting...

so essentially you're upset that bush lied in order to kill many people, whereas clinton just went ahead and did it?

[skunk]

so essentially you're upset that bush lied in order to kill many people, whereas clinton just went ahead and did it?
Aren't you rather missing the point?

[poopyhead]

Another "awesome article". Just for balance. :)

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/21/opinion/21HERB.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=


I know which version I believe.

there is much, much more to this story
It was on the news a month or so ago and Meji is not all that he seems to be
he signed up for the military (national gaurd) and was in the military for quite some time, he was sent to Iraq (which understandably he did not want to go to) and when he came back to the US he deserted. as a justification for his desertion he stated that he was now a conscientious objector and therefore could no longer serve in the military. if I remember correctly, he was even offered a non combat job on US soil by the military, he refused.

EDIT:
found more info on Meji admittedly not from the best website for unbiased political information, but these people support Meji
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/meji-m24.shtml

US soldier refuses to return to Iraq
By Jeff Riley
24 March 2004

Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia, a 28-year-old native of Nicaragua, turned himself in to military authorities at Hanscom Air Force Base, outside of Boston, on March 15, seeking conscientious objector status. He spent five months on the run after serving in Iraq from April 2003 until last October, when he came home on two-week’s leave and refused to return for redeployment October 16.

Mejia is now awaiting a decision from commanding officers on the charges that he will face. If his application for CO status is denied, he faces a court-martial that could carry a sentence of five years imprisonment for desertion and an additional five years for “missing a movement to avoid hazardous duty.” This would be followed by a dishonorable discharge that would end all benefits for the eight-year veteran and possible deportation.

Camilo Mejia moved from Nicaragua to the US when he was 18 to live with his mother, Maria Castillo. He is the son of Carlos Mejia Godoy, the renowned singer from Managua and former cultural minister for the Sandinista government, whose music and poetry symbolized the struggle of the Nicaraguan people against US military intervention in that country.

Mejia joined the military one year after arriving in the US.

He served three years of active Army duty and was a National Guard infantryman for five years, which helped to pay his college tuition. He was entering his final semester as a psychology student at the University of Miami when his unit, C Company, 1-124 INF of the 53rd Infantry Brigade, was called up for pre-mobilization combat training in Fort Stewart.


these are quotes from an article that whole heartedly supports Meji

It looks as though he wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to pay the price of war time military service

[skunk]

It looks as though he wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to pay the price of war time military service
This is NOT WARTIME. This is an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state in clear breach of the UN Treaty. Why should any grunt have to obey illegal orders?

Anyway, isn't that why most people join the army? Isn't that why recruitment offices are predominantly in poor neighbourhoods?

[Backtothemac]

:eek: How can you even compare the two? OMG!

Bush deliberately deceived Congress, the UK, and attempted to decieve the UN in order to go to war. Now 12,000 people are DEAD because of his lies and you compare that to Clinton lying about an affair????

This war is illegal because BUSH LIED! This isn't a cigar and stained dress! This DEAD PEOPLE. YIKES!

So then Clinton deliberately deceived Congress about Iraq in 1998 right? No? How so? You turn the cheek when Clinton says it, and then grill the next guy WHO SAYS THE SAME THING.

[Backtothemac]

BTM, here is the thing... If you want to invade a country you must have solid evidence that can be publicly examined... Bush did not. However, what is even more troubling is that he can not even produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction after the fact. So the war is not legal... however that said, we poop our pants now we have to clean it up. I support the troops because if I do not wish to see a withdraw at this point... At any rate, this situation would hardly be so messy if Bush had not intiated the world without global support.

WHAT! Have you not been watching the news! They have found Sarin and Mustard Gas in the last two weeks. There is more there and there is plenty that has been moved to Syria. The only mistake Bush made (in leading up to the war) was that we rattled sabre's for a year. We should have gone in from jump.

[jelloshotsrule]

Aren't you rather missing the point?

i think i am

and in the meantime, i hope i'm being painted as a bush supporting conservative! :)


if we're simply comparing "lies", then sure, bush wins with the most deadly lie.

if we're comparing the amount of blood on their hands, then again, bush wins by a landslide. however, i laugh at the notion that clinton might be innocent of any wrongdoing that resulted in innocents' deaths.

[Backtothemac]

This is NOT WARTIME. This is an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state in clear breach of the UN Treaty. Why should any grunt have to obey illegal orders?

Anyway, isn't that why most people join the army? Isn't that why recruitment offices are predominantly in poor neighbourhoods?


Skunk! It is WARTIME. It is not an illegal invasion and occupation. It is a restart of hostilities due to the violation of a cease-fire from the first gulf war. WE HAD UN APPROVAL.

And frankly for your other comment. RACISIT!

[poopyhead]

This is NOT WARTIME. This is an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state in clear breach of the UN Treaty. Why should any grunt have to obey illegal orders?

Anyway, isn't that why most people join the army? Isn't that why recruitment offices are predominantly in poor neighbourhoods?

ok, illegal invasion :rolleyes: its still a war even if it is an illegal one

where I live recruiting offices aren't in predominantly poor areas they are next to malls and colleges, places where high school kids and college students hang out.

the military is a job, people get payed, housed, fed, trained, and educated in return for their service. they knowingly sign contracts which reduce their rights as american citizens in return for benefits. Meji served for 8 years, he served in active service, his college was payed for by the military, apparently during this time he had no problems with the idea of killing. when he returned home he went AWOL for 5 months only later turning himself in and saying that he was a conscientious objector. I am against the war but Meji is using the media to get himself out of a bad situation which he knowingly put himself into and had no problem with for 8 years.

[jelloshotsrule]

WHAT! Have you not been watching the news! They have found Sarin and Mustard Gas in the last two weeks. There is more there and there is plenty that has been moved to Syria. The only mistake Bush made (in leading up to the war) was that we rattled sabre's for a year. We should have gone in from jump.

weren't you questioning the war like a month ago? what happened man????

[skunk]

Skunk! It is WARTIME.
No it's not. War has not been declared. And such "war" as there may have been was declared over a little while ago, wasn't it?

It is not an illegal invasion and occupation.
It is a restart of hostilities due to the violation of a cease-fire from the first gulf war. WE HAD UN APPROVAL.
I think you will find - if you look VERY carefully - that UN approval was not given this time. Without acting under the auspices of the UN, whose ceasefire it was, your actions were ILLEGAL.

And frankly for your other comment. RACISIT!
What the hell are you talking about?
:mad:

[skunk]

RACISIT!
I'm still waiting for some explanation of your name-calling. Or do you just sling stuff like that around without reason?

[numediaman]

Skunk! It is WARTIME. It is not an illegal invasion and occupation. It is a restart of hostilities due to the violation of a cease-fire from the first gulf war. WE HAD UN APPROVAL.

And frankly for your other comment. RACISIT!

We had UN approval? Did I miss something? When did they authorize our invasion? (And if they didn't, wouldn't that make it an illegal aggression?)

skunk, he didn't call you a racist. He called you a racisit -- its a NASCAR term of endearment. I think he likes you. :eek:

[skunk]

I am against the war but Meji is using the media to get himself out of a bad situation which he knowingly put himself into and had no problem with for 8 years.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular case, the sentiment must be shared by an increasing number of soldiers in Iraq. They too may have been happy with their situation, including active service, until they found themselves taking part in a complete travesty of the mission they signed up for.

[skunk]

We had UN approval? Did I miss something? When did they authorize our invasion? (And if they didn't, wouldn't that make it an illegal aggression?)

skunk, he didn't call you a racist. He called you a racisit -- its a NASCAR term of endearment. I think he likes you. :eek:
Oh. That's OK then. :) I didn't want to be a "spellist".
What happened to him? He came over all nice a little while ago, and now he's gone all weird again...
:confused:

[sushi]

Wait let me guess, you're a field operative in the CIA who's writing to us now. LIVE FROM THE FIELD GUYS! Yeah right. The "I may have been exposed to information that you haven't" line is a pathetic attempt at covering up the fact that you have no other way to defend this illegal exercise in international relations.
Gee, how did you guess?!

No where did I say anything remotely related to what you replied with. Nor have I hinted at working for or with the CIA. Where did you get that idea?!

This is why it is so hard to carry on a conversation with you. You continually jump to conclusions and go off on tangents.

The fact of the matter is that I have information that is not appropriate to be shared in a forum such as this. Sorry. I wish that I could. I bet that you would find the information very interesting and surprising at the same time. In fact, I just returned from a briefing/training on antiterrorism. Good stuff.

Anyhow, regardless of what I say, I am sure that you will continue to believe as you do.

I am glad that there are true leaders who really understand what is at stake with the current world situation and have acted appropirately. Unfortunately this is an election year and the press is having a hay day with inaccurate, distorted and slanted news and information.

So believe what you will.

Sushi

[Backtothemac]

Oh. That's OK then. :) I didn't want to be a "spellist".
What happened to him? He came over all nice a little while ago, and now he's gone all weird again...
:confused:

Anyway, isn't that why most people join the army? Isn't that why recruitment offices are predominantly in poor neighbourhoods?

That was what I found to be racist, or should I say rude I guess. I found it hard to swallow that comment.

Still nice, just had something happen that has hardened me a bit. Will start a thread on it.

[radhak]

Gee, how did you guess?!

No where did I say anything remotely related to what you replied with. Nor have I hinted at working for or with the CIA. Where did you get that idea?!

This is why it is so hard to carry on a conversation with you. You continually jump to conclusions and go off on tangents.

The fact of the matter is that I have information that is not appropriate to be shared in a forum such as this. Sorry. I wish that I could. I bet that you would find the information very interesting and surprising at the same time. In fact, I just returned from a briefing/training on antiterrorism. Good stuff.

Anyhow, regardless of what I say, I am sure that you will continue to believe as you do.

I am glad that there are true leaders who really understand what is at stake with the current world situation and have acted appropirately. Unfortunately this is an election year and the press is having a hay day with inaccurate, distorted and slanted news and information.

So believe what you will.

Sushi

I believe you, Sushi.

I am myself in receipt of similar information. I shall be brief with this post because I need to rush into a meeting extremely vital for the security of this country, but so secret that I am worried I have already revealed too much. Its going to touch on why we are organizing secret briefing/trainings on antiterrorism, just to check how secretive our agents can be (or do they post in such forums, blowing apart our cover).

Like you said, we need to be grateful we have such leaders who are able to do such vast strategies so secretly, leaving the media to spin inaccurate news, images, photographs, etc.

i beseech all forum members to not speak of such topics aloud. the walls have ears.


:p

[carbonmotion]

WHAT! Have you not been watching the news! They have found Sarin and Mustard Gas in the last two weeks. There is more there and there is plenty that has been moved to Syria. The only mistake Bush made (in leading up to the war) was that we rattled sabre's for a year. We should have gone in from jump.BTM, once again read the reports from UN weapon analysts or even declassified CIA post-actino analysis ...It is the belief of more international relations experts that These very very old sarin and mustard gas shells were left over from the stock pile in 1990 and probably got missed in the decomposition proccess. In fact most of the sarin in those shells are nearly non-effective, a sign of its age. Most experts agree that this is not the weapons of mass destruction stockpile that bush had initially sough out to justify attacking iraq. Furthermore we have found no evidence of an on-going NBC program which is another highlight in the reasons of attacking Iraq. I actually have not heard anyone justify those shell as WMDs indicated prior to the war, not even the bush administration has the gulls to do that... because they know that making that kind of a claim is far too much of a stretch in lies, even for them. If they did that the press will come down on them like a ton of bricks with all the experts that would disagree including Central Intel itself.

Side Note: If Bush wins for 2004, I'm pretty certain that the US is nolonger a democracy, but instead a plutocracy. UN transparency inter'l should look at the american electorial system! We go around the world observing new democracies such as Georgia and yet we are the ones truely with problems.

[takao]

Skunk! It is WARTIME. It is not an illegal invasion and occupation. It is a restart of hostilities due to the violation of a cease-fire from the first gulf war.

hm was there a official declaration of war from the US of A ? no...thats breaking the hague convention from 1907
etc.

to say 'we are only following the UN resolution xyz' (actually the use of force has _not_ been approved by the UN) and breaking the laws of war and other UN resolutions at the same time ...is like preaching water and drinking wine....(anybody knows the english translation for "Doppelmoral"...that would fit more nicely)

if this invasion or occupation is illegal doesn't matter anymore ...the forces of the 'coalition' are there and are not leaving anytime soon....

[sushi]

I believe you, Sushi.

I am myself in receipt of similar information. I shall be brief with this post because I need to rush into a meeting extremely vital for the security of this country, but so secret that I am worried I have already revealed too much. Its going to touch on why we are organizing secret briefing/trainings on antiterrorism, just to check how secretive our agents can be (or do they post in such forums, blowing apart our cover).

Like you said, we need to be grateful we have such leaders who are able to do such vast strategies so secretly, leaving the media to spin inaccurate news, images, photographs, etc.

i beseech all forum members to not speak of such topics aloud. the walls have ears.
You guys are so funny! :D

Anyhow, that is the name of the game. Sometimes it is very difficult to respond with facts or specifics.

Such is life!

Sushi

[skunk]

(anybody knows the english translation for "Doppelmoral"...that would fit more nicely)
Double Standards :)

[zimv20]

(anybody knows the english translation for "Doppelmoral"...that would fit more nicely)

i'm thinking 'hypocrisy' comes close

[carbonmotion]

Gee, how did you guess?!

No where did I say anything remotely related to what you replied with. Nor have I hinted at working for or with the CIA. Where did you get that idea?!

This is why it is so hard to carry on a conversation with you. You continually jump to conclusions and go off on tangents.

The fact of the matter is that I have information that is not appropriate to be shared in a forum such as this. Sorry. I wish that I could. I bet that you would find the information very interesting and surprising at the same time. In fact, I just returned from a briefing/training on antiterrorism. Good stuff.

Anyhow, regardless of what I say, I am sure that you will continue to believe as you do.

I am glad that there are true leaders who really understand what is at stake with the current world situation and have acted appropirately. Unfortunately this is an election year and the press is having a hay day with inaccurate, distorted and slanted news and information.

So believe what you will.

Sushi

Yes, The might US Intelligence Service with no human assets anywhere on earth has uncovered information regarding Iraq that their counterparts in europe, israel, russia, and china do not see. The review of the "classified justification for war" by the UN reported back in saying that the data gathered was not enough to justify war. Bush toted this bag of intelligence as gospel when in fact it was mostly lies and theories drawn from facts. Remeber part of the "evidence" was a plagerized document by the british MI-6 from popular media sources... wooo, what amazing "intelligience".

[skunk]

Remember part of the "evidence" was a plagiarized document by the british MI-6 from popular media sources... wooo, what amazing "intelligience".
Yeah. I'm sorry about that. But I think they were leant on.

[sushi]

Yes, The might US Intelligence Service with no human assets anywhere on earth has uncovered information regarding Iraq that their counterparts in europe, israel, russia, and china do not see. The review of the "classified justification for war" by the UN reported back in saying that the data gathered was not enough to justify war. Bush toted this bag of intelligence as gospel when in fact it was mostly lies and theories drawn from facts. Remeber part of the "evidence" was a plagerized document by the british MI-6 from popular media sources... wooo, what amazing "intelligience".
Uh, you are only focusing on the WMD portion.

There were other reasons for the actions that were taken.

As for WMD, that is an unfinished story at this point in time. It is too early to say with 100% certainty one way or another.

Sushi

[carbonmotion]

You guys are so funny! :D

Anyhow, that is the name of the game. Sometimes it is very difficult to respond with facts or specifics.

Such is life!

Sushi Listen, if you don't give people factual justification then what is the purpose of democracy? Democracy's sole point is to let the people see a transparent government, to know what is going on. Yet, bush has bent and broken every foundational democratic princple in the name of its protection. The cost of protecting democracy cannot be the destruction of democracy, that is too high of a price. What we're living in right now is a capitalist-plutocratic state... we're essentially a rich version of what used to be the soviet union, except we give the people a thin illusion of freedom and economic well-being. We're like the tube babies in the matrix, feed and bathed nicely and warmly, while our minds are plugged in to some oblivious life of cyclical nothingness... and outside, the machines (political ones in this case) take free reign. This is hardly the objective of our founding fathers.

[skunk]

Listen, if you don't give people factual justification then what is the purpose of democracy? Democracy's sole point is to let the people see a transparent government, to know what is going on. Yet, bush has bent and broken every foundational democratic princple in the name of its protection. The cost of protecting democracy cannot be the destruction of democracy, that is too high of a price. What we're living in right now is a capitalist-plutocratic state... we're essentially a rich version of what used to be the soviet union, except we give the people a thin illusion of freedom and economic well-being. We're like the tube babies in the matrix, feed and bathed nicely and warmly, while our minds are plugged in to some oblivious life of cyclical nothingness... and outside, the machines (political ones in this case) take free reign. This is hardly the objective of our founding fathers.
Wow! :D
Keep 'em coming! :D

[carbonmotion]

Uh, you are only focusing on the WMD portion.

There were other reasons for the actions that were taken.

As for WMD, that is an unfinished story at this point in time. It is too early to say with 100% certainty one way or another.

Sushi Once again that means nothing to me. Without specific reasons and justification, you can't except the people to support the government in its actions. State what "other" reasons... and if so, those reason are only secondary to the big ticker --the NBC production capabilities of Iraq. Devoid of that singular behemoth of a reason, the reasons laid out by Bush would seem even more hollow than it did --essentially a blatant lie in anycase.

[skunk]

Uh, you are only focusing on the WMD portion.
Because WMD was the only reason given. Fair enough?

There were other reasons for the actions that were taken.
Shouldn't we have been told, then?

As for WMD, that is an unfinished story at this point in time. It is too early to say with 100% certainty one way or another.

Sushi
Nobody will EVER be able to say with 100% certainty what the truth is. The whole point is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all claimed they WERE 100% certain. They weren't even close.

[sushi]

Listen, if you don't give people factual justification then what is the purpose of democracy? Democracy's sole point is to let the people see a transparent government, to know what is going on. Yet, bush has bent and broken every foundational democratic princple in the name of its protection. The cost of protecting democracy cannot be the destruction of democracy, that is too high of a price. What we're living in right now is a capitalist-plutocratic state... we're essentially a rich version of what used to be the soviet union, except we give the people a thin illusion of freedom and economic well-being. We're like the tube babies in the matrix, feed and bathed nicely and warmly, while our minds are plugged in to some oblivious life of cyclical nothingness... and outside, the machines (political ones in this case) take free reign. This is hardly the objective of our founding fathers.
In a democracy you want the free flow of information. I support that completely. However, sometimes, that is not what is best for the well being of a nation.

Let me try to illustrate with an example.

Let's say that the time is 1985, and you know about the F-114A in detail.

The existence of the F-114A has not been released to the public. The first public knowledge of the F-114A was during DS1 when it was first used.

During the raid on Libiya, the use of the F-114A was considered, but not used. Our lead in stealth was so dramatic, that the powers to be decided that the raid on Libiya was not worth the chance of revealing the existence of the F-114A, or any of its capabilities.

Okay, now pretend that it is 1987 and someone asks a question about the Stealth Fighter saying that they know that it exists. Unfortunately, you cannot even comment on its existance, let alone any of its performance parameters. Yet this individual is making all kinds of conjecture about its performance, range, etc. which you know to be incorrect. You would like to provide them the facts, but cannot in this case.

So how do you respond without crossing the line?!

Anyhow, as time passes in the sandbox, and more information becomes public, I think that it will be very interesting to see.

Sushi

[zimv20]

Let me try to illustrate with an example.

Let's say that the time is 1985, and you know about the F-114A in detail.

so is there a difference between:

a) i'm not going to tell my girlfriend what i got her for her birthday, because it will spoil the surprise, and
b) i'm not going to tell my girlfriend i'm going to kill her, because it will spoil the surprise

[sushi]

so is there a difference between:

a) i'm not going to tell my girlfriend what i got her for her birthday, because it will spoil the surprise, and
b) i'm not going to tell my girlfriend i'm going to kill her, because it will spoil the surprise
Sorry, but I don't understand your discussion point.

Sushi

[skunk]

Okay, now pretend that it is 1987 and someone asks a question about the Stealth Fighter saying that they know that it exists. Unfortunately, you cannot even comment on its existance, let alone any of its performance parameters. Yet this individual is making all kinds of conjecture about its performance, range, etc. which you know to be incorrect. You would like to provide them the facts, but cannot in this case.

So how do you respond without crossing the line?!

And your point is? Have we secretly been doing REALLY WELL over there? Have we got a SECRET WEAPON which can kill even more innocent bystanders/wedding-guests/old women/children? Is Paul Bremer a robot? Come on, you can tell US! We're all friends here. :)

[Frohickey]

This elitist horse**** really rubs me the wrong way. I did not serve in the military. The military will not take me because of a lung disease I have that does not keep me from playing ice hockey at some of the highest levels accessible to an amateur but keeps me from volunteering for the service.

Don't you ****ing tell me to shut up, Frohickey. Don't you dare even insinuate that my opinion is not valid because it is at odds with your militarised version. The same goes for sushi and BTTM.

Just because you have served doesn't mean you've earned the right to tell those who haven't to shut up.

Someone get an Waambulance, quick!

Put up or shut up means that if you think you can do better don't just say it, go ahead and do it.

How does your family like your anti-military stance? Hmmmmm???

[sushi]

And your point is? Have we secretly been doing REALLY WELL over there? Have we got a SECRET WEAPON which can kill even more innocent bystanders/wedding-guests/old women/children? Is Paul Bremer a robot? Come on, you can tell US! We're all friends here. :)
I think that one of your statements could be considered true.

Now, you'll just have to guess which one! :eek: :D

Sushi

[Frohickey]

Understand your concern.

However, this war is being conducted much differently than the Vietnam conflict.

We may be there for a while, I don't think that it will turn into the type of situation that Vietnam was. The issue at hand is not necessarily Iraq, but rather the war on terrorism which is worldwide and not confined to one location.

By taking the war to Afghanistan and Iraq, we are confronting them directly rather than waiting for them to conduct operations on our own soil like they did during 911.

Sushi

I know that this sounds so, whats that german word, schadenfreude, but I think that is what some of the war detractors want. To wait for them to conduct operations on our own soil.

Oh wait, they already did, back in September 11, 2001. :eek:

Some, and this is shown by the comments of one of their leaders, the hero of Chappaquiddick, olympic swimmer, senator Edward Kennedy, by trying to turn this into the type of war that his brother started. :eek:

This will not be another Vietnam, not if we can help it. The way it will happen is if we all roll over and play dead, and let the Michael Moore's and Ted Kennedy's have the only word.

The only thing that I am afraid of is a democratic/constitutional rights Iraq with a successful economy churning out Iraqi animation based on Dragonball Z. :p <-- adding some levity to this post

[skunk]

I think that one of your statements could be considered true.

Now, you'll just have to guess which one! :eek: :D

Sushi
Strange. He looks so lifelike....

[Frohickey]

BTM, here is the thing... If you want to invade a country you must have solid evidence that can be publicly examined... Bush did not. However, what is even more troubling is that he can not even produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction after the fact. So the war is not legal... however that said, we poop our pants now we have to clean it up. I support the troops because if I do not wish to see a withdraw at this point... At any rate, this situation would hardly be so messy if Bush had not intiated the world without global support.

In one year, with the majority of the troops set to the duty of providing law and order, with a tiny fraction looking for biological/chemical/nuclear weapons, and with the large number of weapons bunkers that are known to exist, and the fact that Saddam made his biological/chemical/nuclear munitions to look like normal munitions, how long do you expect it would take to even go through 10% of those?

I don't see anyone volunteering to go to Iraq with their fully-charged Makita powerdrill as a weapons inspector.

I think that with our society of instant gratification, microwave tv dinner, video games, etc, we are expecting instant indication of the presence or absence of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons. This takes time. These things could have been smuggled out or hidden in a country the size of Iraq.

Come back in 10 years, and lets see if they don't find any. ;)

[skunk]

I know that this sounds so, whats that german word, schadenfreude, but I think that is what some of the war detractors want. To wait for them to conduct operations on our own soil.
The Iraqis were not responsible for 911. Don't you realize that yet? Geez.

Oh wait, they already did, back in September 11, 2001. :eek:
Not unless you are saying "all Muslims are hi-jackers". You're not saying THAT, are you? ARE you?

[sushi]

Strange. He looks so lifelike....
:D :D :D

[skunk]

we are expecting instant indication of the presence or absence of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons.
No we are not.

[jelloshotsrule]

Someone get an Waambulance, quick!

Put up or shut up means that if you think you can do better don't just say it, go ahead and do it.

How does your family like your anti-military stance? Hmmmmm???

so you're essentially saying that might makes right

wow, how ****ing arrogant

[Frohickey]

he signed up for the military (national gaurd) and was in the military for quite some time, he was sent to Iraq (which understandably he did not want to go to) and when he came back to the US he deserted. as a justification for his desertion he stated that he was now a conscientious objector and therefore could no longer serve in the military. if I remember correctly, he was even offered a non combat job on US soil by the military, he refused.

It looks as though he wanted the benefits of being in the military without having to pay the price of war time military service

The facts that I read about the Mejia case is that he is not a US citizen, and he claims that he was told by NG officers that he couldn't be expected to serve if he was not. I say that he gets a bad conduct discharge, and gets deported from the US back to his country of citizenship. :mad:

Other stories that I have read is that Iraqi terrorists use women and children to hide behind while they take shots at US soldiers. This seems to be S.O.P. for these lowlifes, heck it was done in Somalia as well when we were fighting Islamists too.

I think that everyone needs to see things in perspective here.

We have documented proof of prisoner humiliation and torture by Coalition forces in an Iraqi prison. The receipients of the prisoner humiliation and torture are *NOT* mormon missionaries, but captured insurgents who were trying to kill innocents or US soldiers.

We also have documented proof of civilian murder and atrocity by terrorist insurgents. We have one of Mr. Pearl, the journalist, and another of Mr. Berg, the telecom specialist, as well as others. The receipients of the civilian murder and atrocities are *NOT* even combatants!!! :mad:

[Backtothemac]

Ok, let me clear something up. This is from the mouth of a soldier that was within 100 yards of the Sarin IED when it when off. How do I know this? He is my cousin. The round did not go off correctly because of the age of the weapon, it did not go off correctly because it was not fired correctly. Had it been fired correctly, my cousin would have been the second family member to die in Operation Iraqi freedom.

So, is this the smoking gun. No, it is the tip of an iceberg. The non NBC weapons are painted to exaclty look like the NBC weapons. There are what 6 million artilliary rounds scattered around Iraq. You have one year to find all of the chemical ones, oh, and BTW, you don't even know where all of the non chemical ones are.

Look, if you view the UN as the highest legal and moral body in the world, then yes in your eyes, it was illegal. I for one view it as an inept, corrupt body that is 100% lacking in the ability to do anything well. Yea, where were they in Rowanda? Look, we are not perfect, and they are not perfect. I can admit when we are wrong, and I have in the past. Why can't you guys ever admit when the UN is wrong? Why are they the know all of all knowledge?

Russia, France, and Germany. THREE countries apposed us. We have over 50 countries supporting the war in Iraq. And all you can ever say is they have what 500 troops there. Or they have only spent 1 million to our 100 billion.

So what they are there. Is their sacrifice any less than ours? That is an insult. Not everyone is going to agree with us, and I frankly don't care if they do. And if you don't think Clinton would have gone into Iraq, you are mistaken.

[sushi]

Because WMD was the only reason given.
While WMD were part of the justification, there were other important reasons as well. Unfortunately, the media focused on the WMD due to the discrepancies and issues surrounding the gathering of the information.

Nobody will EVER be able to say with 100% certainty what the truth is. The whole point is that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld all claimed they WERE 100% certain. They weren't even close.
So true. Iraq is a big country.

The verdict as to whether or not these folks were correct in their claims is still yet to be determined.

There are many places yet to be searched, above and way below the ground.

Sushi

[carbonmotion]

In a democracy you want the free flow of information. I support that completely. However, sometimes, that is not what is best for the well being of a nation.

Let me try to illustrate with an example.

Let's say that the time is 1985, and you know about the F-114A in detail.

The existence of the F-114A has not been released to the public. The first public knowledge of the F-114A was during DS1 when it was first used.

During the raid on Libiya, the use of the F-114A was considered, but not used. Our lead in stealth was so dramatic, that the powers to be decided that the raid on Libiya was not worth the chance of revealing the existence of the F-114A, or any of its capabilities.

Okay, now pretend that it is 1987 and someone asks a question about the Stealth Fighter saying that they know that it exists. Unfortunately, you cannot even comment on its existance, let alone any of its performance parameters. Yet this individual is making all kinds of conjecture about its performance, range, etc. which you know to be incorrect. You would like to provide them the facts, but cannot in this case.

So how do you respond without crossing the line?!

Anyhow, as time passes in the sandbox, and more information becomes public, I think that it will be very interesting to see.

SushiThe development of military hardware is another issue entirely compared to the act of proceeding to kill alot of people (war). The difference is as stark as letting someone off easy for possessing an illegal AK-47 compared to giving someone life for the act of using that AK-47 to mow down an entire family. Similarly, it is easier to forgive the US Government for the secret develop of the F-117 (i dont know where you get 14 from) than to forgive them for using the F-117 to commit mass murder in an illegal war. I can more easily forgive my government for hiding the exsistance of a military prototype than for them to lie about evidence so they can wag the dog and in the proccess kill hundreds of innocent people and hurt thousands of innocent famlies. Not to mention hurt the credibility of the shining example of democracy that the US is suppose to represent. The Bush administration is short sighted, by wagging the dog, they may have gainning the support of the hardliners and the military -industrial combine for their election, but they have lost the faith of the ordinary people further damaged the image of American in the eyes of the world. My professor proclaimed that Bush'es post 9-11 policies were as bad for the US and Sen. McCarthy and his HUAC was for th 1950s-60s ...I argue that Bush's policies do far worse damage... we are offending and hurting other nations in ways we have never done before and if you don't stop and heal the damage, the day of reckoning will coming upon us very soon where what we reap will be the lies, the deceptions, and the anger that we have sown over the decades of american forigen policey.

[Frohickey]

This is NOT WARTIME. This is an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign state in clear breach of the UN Treaty. Why should any grunt have to obey illegal orders?

Anyway, isn't that why most people join the army? Isn't that why recruitment offices are predominantly in poor neighbourhoods?

Lets see. Congress approved the use of force. Last I see, the US is a sovereign state that is not under the thumb of the UN.

As to people joining the army, where do you expect recruitment offices to be? I would think that its a mark of efficiency to be located where the potential recruits would be at. Makes it more convenient and cost effective, from a transportation point of view. Besides, rich people can afford to have a limo drive them to the recruitment office.

BTW, being poor is not a race either.

[zimv20]

And if you don't think Clinton would have gone into Iraq, you are mistaken.
you mean in the context of post-9/11?

[carbonmotion]

Ok, let me clear something up. This is from the mouth of a soldier that was within 100 yards of the Sarin IED when it when off. How do I know this? He is my cousin. The round did not go off correctly because of the age of the weapon, it did not go off correctly because it was not fired correctly. Had it been fired correctly, my cousin would have been the second family member to die in Operation Iraqi freedom.

So, is this the smoking gun. No, it is the tip of an iceberg. The non NBC weapons are painted to exaclty look like the NBC weapons. There are what 6 million artilliary rounds scattered around Iraq. You have one year to find all of the chemical ones, oh, and BTW, you don't even know where all of the non chemical ones are.

Look, if you view the UN as the highest legal and moral body in the world, then yes in your eyes, it was illegal. I for one view it as an inept, corrupt body that is 100% lacking in the ability to do anything well. Yea, where were they in Rowanda? Look, we are not perfect, and they are not perfect. I can admit when we are wrong, and I have in the past. Why can't you guys ever admit when the UN is wrong? Why are they the know all of all knowledge?

Russia, France, and Germany. THREE countries apposed us. We have over 50 countries supporting the war in Iraq. And all you can ever say is they have what 500 troops there. Or they have only spent 1 million to our 100 billion.

So what they are there. Is their sacrifice any less than ours? That is an insult. Not everyone is going to agree with us, and I frankly don't care if they do. And if you don't think Clinton would have gone into Iraq, you are mistaken. Don't you dare bring up Rawanda, the UN forces stationed there under the command of a UN/Canadian general was ready to go in and stop the masssacure but the G-7, specifically the United States staunchly opposed the action and rallied the other nations to oppose it as well. i have read the articles by UN delegates as well as one by Kofi Annon that specifically rested the irresponsiveness of the UN military stationed there on the head of the US. Infact instead of they US actually stronged suggested the troops be pulled out. This entire action was racist because of the US belief that black/africa lifes are not worth as much as american lives.

[Backtothemac]

you mean in the context of post-9/11?

Oh, exactly he would have gone. He wanted to go in 98, but everyone convinced him not to because it would have been viewed as a Wag the Dog.

WHICH, I wanted Clinton to go in.

[skunk]

Ok, let me clear something up. This is from the mouth of a soldier that was within 100 yards of the Sarin IED when it when off. How do I know this? He is my cousin. The round did not go off correctly because of the age of the weapon, it did not go off correctly because it was not fired correctly. Had it been fired correctly, my cousin would have been the second family member to die in Operation Iraqi freedom.

So, is this the smoking gun. No, it is the tip of an iceberg. The non NBC weapons are painted to exaclty look like the NBC weapons. There are what 6 million artilliary rounds scattered around Iraq. You have one year to find all of the chemical ones, oh, and BTW, you don't even know where all of the non chemical ones are.
You have NO IDEA whether it is the tip of an iceberg or not. Pure conjecture.

(Anyway, if it is, there's only 9 more to find:D)

Look, if you view the UN as the highest legal and moral body in the world, then yes in your eyes, it was illegal. I for one view it as an inept, corrupt body that is 100% lacking in the ability to do anything well. Yea, where were they in Rowanda? Look, we are not perfect, and they are not perfect. I can admit when we are wrong, and I have in the past. Why can't you guys ever admit when the UN is wrong? Why are they the know all of all knowledge?
I readily but unhappily admit that the UN is imperfect. But surely the "most powerful (not to mention righteous) nation in the world should be working to reform it instead of tearing up the rules.

And if you don't think Clinton would have gone into Iraq, you are mistaken.
Why would he?

[skunk]

Lets see. Congress approved the use of force. Last I see, the US is a sovereign state that is not under the thumb of the UN.
*Sigh* The UN Treaty is incorporated into the highest law in the land. It takes precedence over State and Federal law. Which thumb?

BTW, being poor is not a race either.
I don't believe I ever suggested it was.

[carbonmotion]

Good thing someone brought up the concept of soverign nation, I was afraid some of you did not understand its meaning. Iraq is a soverign nation that, according to international law (which we chartered), can not be attacked unless the attacker was first assulted. This preemtive strike stuff is pure ************ and part of the reason why it is a illegal war. And if you argue that we went in there not for a political diversion or dog waging by George st. Bush wanted to clean up Iraq's terrible human rights record, then clearly, other countries will be next. After we liberate Iraq, we should definately procceeds to cleanse 80% of the African contient nations, the People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Russia, Most of South America, Mexico... and then after we finished off the rest of the world, we would quickly realize that we are a pretty bad offender of human rights too... oops time to stick the gun on our own temple.

Do what we say, but not what we do right?

[Backtothemac]

Don't you dare bring up Rawanda, the UN forces stationed there under the command of a UN/Canadian general was ready to go in and stop the masssacure but the G-7, specifically the United States staunchly opposed the action and rallied the other nations to oppose it as well. i have read the articles by UN delegates as well as one by Kofi Annon that specifically rested the irresponsiveness of the UN military stationed there on the head of the US. Infact instead of they US actually stronged suggested the troops be pulled out. This entire action was racist because of the US belief that black/africa lifes are not worth as much as american lives.


************! The US did not want THEIR troops going back after what had happened in Mogidishu. That is complete fluff. And that happened when? 1994? How was in the White House? So, Clinton was a racist is that what you are saying. Don't generalize the word racist to fit your interpritation of something. It is wrong. How do I know. I did it earlier in this thread, and I am sorry about that.

[Frohickey]

The Iraqis were not responsible for 911. Don't you realize that yet? Geez.

Not unless you are saying "all Muslims are hi-jackers". You're not saying THAT, are you? ARE you?

Lets see...
Which Muslim-dominated state has been marginalized in the world? Iraq after so many sanctions that could have been avoided by Saddam if he decided to abide by all the UN resolutions as a condition of the cease-fire. There could be Iran and Syria, which are not doing too hot either. Add on other marginalized states, like North Korea.

What do all of them have in common. They are marginalized, so they are ripe for either terrorist takeover of their government, or they are ripe for cooperating with terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is a stateless entity, after the Taliban was gone. It would be expected that Al Qaeda would like to ally itself with some state to get the benefits a state provides. This would be safe harbor, resources both material and personnel, a method of resupply, and maybe an industrial base for improvements in armaments.

From this, Iraq is a very tempting target for terrorists. Marginalized after 12 years of UN sanctions, known desire to gain horrific bio/chem/nuke weapons, minority ruling party that would be easy to topple, disaffected population after harsh treatment by Saddam. Its like the next logical choice for the terrorists.

After this, Iran and Syria are a distant 2nd and 3rd, and North Korea is an even more distant 4th (religion incompatibility). Libya might have been another good one, but that had distance going against it as well.

[takao]

Look, if you view the UN as the highest legal and moral body in the world, then yes in your eyes, it was illegal. I for one view it as an inept, corrupt body that is 100% lacking in the ability to do anything well.

i have the same opionion about the government of the USA...yes even under clinton


Russia, France, and Germany. THREE countries apposed us. We have over 50 countries supporting the war in Iraq. And all you can ever say is they have what 500 troops there. Or they have only spent 1 million to our 100 billion.

48 including USA
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html

including countries like solomon island
or marshall islands
or afgahnistan (hm the government choosen by US supports the war....big surprise)
and honduras is pulling out the troops

how about countries like china,india ?
count the small countries like one member then i count the 'small ones' in europe too: sweden,norway,finland,belgium,switzerland,austria,slovenia,croatia,greece,ireland,luxemburg,vatican, andorra,liechtenstein,san marino and thats only europe....how many additional countries are there in the world ?
only 3 against this war...yeah right...

[skunk]

I did it earlier in this thread, and I am sorry about that.
Ah. :rolleyes:

[Backtothemac]

You have NO IDEA whether it is the tip of an iceberg or not. Pure conjecture.

(Anyway, if it is, there's only 9 more to find:D)


I readily but unhappily admit that the UN is imperfect. But surely the "most powerful (not to mention righteous) nation in the world should be working to reform it instead of tearing up the rules.


Why would he?

Actually 545 more shells unaccounted for. You are right about the UN, but the very thing that should bring it together is that it removes a state's ability to have soverign power to launch a preemptive strike to protect itself.

Why would Clinton? He hated Saddam more than Bush 1, and remember, Saddam was behind a plot to have Bush 1 assassinated.

[sushi]

The development of military hardware is another issue entirely compared to the act of proceeding to kill alot of people (war). The difference is as stark as letting someone off easy for possessing an illegal AK-47 compared to giving someone life for the act of using that AK-47 to mow down an entire family. Similarly, it is easier to forgive the US Government for the secret develop of the F-117 (i dont know where you get 14 from) than to forgive them for using the F-117 to commit mass murder in an illegal war. I can more easily forgive my government for hiding the exsistance of a military prototype than for them to lie about evidence so they can wag the dog and in the proccess kill hundreds of innocent people and hurt thousands of innocent famlies. Not to mention hurt the credibility of the shining example of democracy that the US is suppose to represent. The Bush administration is short sighted, by wagging the dog, they may have gainning the support of the hardliners and the military -industrial combine for their election, but they have lost the faith of the ordinary people further damaged the image of American in the eyes of the world. My professor proclaimed that Bush'es post 9-11 policies were as bad for the US and Sen. McCarthy and his HUAC was for th 1950s-60s ...I argue that Bush's policies do far worse damage... we are offending and hurting other nations in ways we have never done before and if you don't stop and heal the damage, the day of reckoning will coming upon us very soon where what we reap will be the lies, the deceptions, and the anger that we have sown over the decades of american forigen policey.
I wonder how the Iranians who had family members that died due Saddam's WMD program feel? I forget the exact numbers, but it was in the 100s of thousands.

The fact is, Iraq did have a WMD program. They did have WMD and did have the capabilitiy of producing more of them. The 64 dollar question is, what do they have today? The verdict is still out on this one. In the pre-invasion days, Saddam wanted us to believe that he still had them, and would use them.

The UN inspectors were controlled during their inspections. They were not free to roam as they wanted to check what they wanted. Visits were precoordinated and sites sanitized. The only true way to find out something like this is through unannounced inspections.

As for the F-114A comment. I goofed on that one. I meant the F-117. Good catch. Must be getting tired!

This also tells me that as much as I enjoy the debate, at 0300, it is getting time to hit the hay soon.

Sushi

Edit: spelling

[carbonmotion]

Lets see...
Which Muslim-dominated state has been marginalized in the world? Iraq after so many sanctions that could have been avoided by Saddam if he decided to abide by all the UN resolutions as a condition of the cease-fire. There could be Iran and Syria, which are not doing too hot either. Add on other marginalized states, like North Korea.

What do all of them have in common. They are marginalized, so they are ripe for either terrorist takeover of their government, or they are ripe for cooperating with terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is a stateless entity, after the Taliban was gone. It would be expected that Al Qaeda would like to ally itself with some state to get the benefits a state provides. This would be safe harbor, resources both material and personnel, a method of resupply, and maybe an industrial base for improvements in armaments.

From this, Iraq is a very tempting target for terrorists. Marginalized after 12 years of UN sanctions, known desire to gain horrific bio/chem/nuke weapons, minority ruling party that would be easy to topple, disaffected population after harsh treatment by Saddam. Its like the next logical choice for the terrorists.

After this, Iran and Syria are a distant 2nd and 3rd, and North Korea is an even more distant 4th (religion incompatibility). Libya might have been another good one, but that had distance going against it as well.

You can't attack a country under the assumption of what may happen in the future. You're not telepathic, you can't predict what will occur or not occur in the future and every soverign nation has the right to exist not exist unless a more powerful nation deems other wise... that kind of thinking is purely undemocratic.

[skunk]

From this, Iraq is a very tempting target for terrorists.
Sure it is. Now.

After this, Iran and Syria are a distant 2nd and 3rd, and North Korea is an even more distant 4th (religion incompatibility).
Are you suggesting that all three should be subjected to a bit of "shock, awe and broomsticks up the arse"? Nice plan.

[carbonmotion]

I wonder how the Iranians who had family members that died due Sadam's WMD program feel? I forget the exact numbers, but it was in the 100s of thousands.

The fact is, Iraq did have a WMD program. They did have WMD and did have the capabilitiy of producing more of them. The 64 dollar question is, what do they have today? The verdict is still out on this one. In the pre-invasion days, Sadam wanted us to believe that he still had them, and would use them.

The UN inspectors were controlled during their inspections. They were not free to roam as they wanted to check what they wanted. Visits were precoordinated and sites sanitized. The only true way to find out something like this is through unannounced inspections.

As for the F-114A comment. I goofed on that one. I meant the F-117. Good catch. Must be getting tired!

This also tells me that as much as I enjoy the debate, at 0300, it is getting time to hit the hay soon.

Sushi I'm glad you brought the WMD issue up with Iran. The WMD were supplied by the US and later maufacturing was tutored by US specialists during the Iran-Iraq war because at the time the US feared the Komenini government in Iran. Thus root cause of the chemical weapons in Iraq was and is the sole responsibility of the bad US forgien policey I was speaking of before.

[Frohickey]

*Sigh* The UN Treaty is incorporated into the highest law in the land. It takes precedence over State and Federal law. Which thumb?


You are mistaken.

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land, in the United States, at least.

Treaties are allowed, per the US Constitution, not the other way around.

How can the UN Treaty, which is allowed, per the US Constitution, superceded the US Constitution?

[skunk]

You are mistaken.

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land, in the United States, at least.

Treaties are allowed, per the US Constitution, not the other way around.

How can the UN Treaty, which is allowed, per the US Constitution, superceded the US Constitution?
Help me out on this, one of you! Link required...

[Backtothemac]

You are mistaken.

The US Constitution is the highest law of the land, in the United States, at least.

Treaties are allowed, per the US Constitution, not the other way around.

How can the UN Treaty, which is allowed, per the US Constitution, superceded the US Constitution?


You are mistaken.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, however treaties become part of the constititution if the are ratified.

[carbonmotion]

North Korea which is probably most deserving of being invaded by the US of all those countries because they actually have nuclear weapons and almost the ability to project them on an international scale with long range rocket will never be invaded by the US. I just came back from a international relations conference on the role of china in the Southeast Asia... point being, most think tank military experts agree that if the US attacks korea they will have to prepare for a two decade long war like in vietnam with tremendous casualties but it is possible to come out victorious... This ironically means ****ing up the US economy more then it has now, and being chinese myself (born there) and as a well as specializing in Southeast asian affairs, I would go further to say that there is a good chance that the US will loose when the Chinese military makes teh war too bloody for the US public opinion to stomach. Military think tanks never consider the home factor. So this is why the US chose Iraq, its a war that they know they can't loose... cause being american, we all know how much we hate loosing. We play to win... even if we have to rig the game to do it.

[skunk]

You are mistaken.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, however treaties become part of the constititution if the are ratified.
You have just posted the quote I wanted. Thanks. As you can plainly see, all treaties shall be the supreme law of the land even though the Constitution may say otherwise. I'd say that makes the UN Treaty trump the Constitution.

[skunk]

So this is why the US chose Iraq, its a war that they know they can't loose... cause being american, we all know how much we hate losing.
I've got some really bad news for you, CM.

[carbonmotion]

I'd say that makes the UN Treaty trump the Constitution. No skunk your are incorrect in that assumption --as a prelaw major the definition of that paragraph is this. All treaties shall be enforced with the same power as the law of the land, the U.S. constitution.... Thus all treaties automatically become part of the USC.

[Backtothemac]

You have just posted the quote I wanted. Thanks. As you can plainly see, all treaties shall be the supreme law of the land even though the Constitution may say otherwise. I'd say that makes the UN Treaty trump the Constitution.

Well, it is technical, and there are those like myself that say it is unconstitutional because it does remove our right to declare war. Remember though we were already at war with Iraq, and there was a halt to combat. That can be voided if Iraq did not comply. That was Clinton's arguement in 98, and Bush's this time. It is a fine line. And yes, there are questions, but I don't believe it was illegal. I think the UN charter is illegal.

[skunk]

No skunk your are incorrect in that assumption --as a prelaw major the definition of that paragraph is this. All treaties shall be enforced with the same power as the law of the land, the U.S. constitution.... Thus all treaties automatically become part of the USC.
OK. So that makes Bush War II unconstitutional. Great.

[skunk]

I think the UN charter is illegal.
How can it be illegal if it's part of the Constitution?

[carbonmotion]

Well, it is technical, and there are those like myself that say it is unconstitutional because it does remove our right to declare war. Remember though we were already at war with Iraq, and there was a halt to combat. That can be voided if Iraq did not comply. That was Clinton's arguement in 98, and Bush's this time. It is a fine line. And yes, there are questions, but I don't believe it was illegal. I think the UN charter is illegal. In both cases the arguments were bogus and /or marginally applicable to the actual reason why the war was waged. Clinton was no Saint as far as FP is concerned but however as much as he bumbled, he managed to do it with out incuring the level of wrath from the world that bush has which shows just how poor of a political entity bush and his staff makes.

[Frohickey]

You are mistaken.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, however treaties become part of the constititution if the are ratified.

The US Constitution cannot be superceded by a UN treaty, or any other treaty that is counter to it.

[skunk]

The US Constitution cannot be superceded by a UN treaty, or any other treaty that is counter to it.
That's not what it says. It says that treaties are incorporated into the Constitution, despite what the Constitution may say to the contrary. Slightly weird concept, but if the quotation is right, that is it.

[Backtothemac]

The US Constitution cannot be superceded by a UN treaty, or any other treaty that is counter to it.

When a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. But, here is the question. The UN charter, is not a treaty. It is a membership. As such, is is part of the constitution? Does it overrule the countries ability to make war?

[sushi]

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, however treaties become part of the constititution if the are ratified.
I see this paragraph clarifying state vice federal government rights.

If the United States enteres a treaty with another country, then the individual states must also comply with this treaty as well. Also, a state by itself cannot enter a treaty with another country. Only the US Government can.

Reference your last comment. Where in the US Constitution does it state that a treaty becomes part of the constitution if they are ratified? Amendments...yes. But where does it say this for treaties? Thanks!

Sushi

[Backtothemac]

I see this paragraph clarifying state vice federal government rights.

If the United States enteres a treaty with another country, then the individual states must also comply with this treaty as well. Also, a state by itself cannot enter a treaty with another country. Only the US Government can.

Reference your last comment. Where in the US Constitution does it state that a treaty becomes part of the constitution if they are ratified? Amendments...yes. But where does it say this for treaties? Thanks!

Sushi

It is in the quote. If a treaty is made, then it becomes part of the supreme law of the land. IE the constitution.

[carbonmotion]

When a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. But, here is the question. The UN charter, is not a treaty. It is a membership. As such, is is part of the constitution? Does it overrule the countries ability to make war? Grey areas I grant you, but until the Supreme Court rules on it, I will happily defend my stance on the issue which you can probably guess. Btw, so far cases have tried to reach the supreme court on this issue, but they've pretty much been rejected on the grounds of Rule 10 as well as judicial restraint... so dont expect a definitive resolution anytime soon.

[Frohickey]

Since I see that this thread is in the midst of a return to the Iraq War and the reasons for/against it, I would like to put this article up as an explanation of the rationale by both groups. It puts the argument in the context of a local event that happened in Palo Alto, CA.

Traitors to Animal-Kind (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200405210925.asp)
A big cat in Palo Alto says much about the culture.

By Clinton W. Taylor

Dangerous cats, like most dangers, are uncommon in mellow, affluent Palo Alto, California. Then two horses were attacked by a mountain lion near the Stanford campus earlier this month. Stanford University’s response to this assault was decisive and emphatic: Jeff Wachtel, Senior Assistant to Stanford’s president, immediately announced that no firearms could be used to capture or kill the creature, citing concerns about public safety. Nothing would actually be done to capture the panther.

Following the horse-slaying, the cat apparently worked its way up creek channels into residential Palo Alto, and rumors of its arrival followed. A professor I know correctly instructed his children that, should they encounter the beast, they should shout and raise their arms over their heads to look big, in order to frighten it off. His concern was appropriate: Mountain lions, though rare, have killed at least six Californians over the past 114 years and mauled eight more.

On Monday, Palo Alto police tracked the mountain lion to a tree on Walnut Drive. According to a grim video report by area TV station KPIX, police considered using a tranquilizer dart, but decided against it because local elementary schools would soon release their students, and darts might take 20 to 30 minutes to knock the animal out. So an officer aimed her rifle at the mountain lion's heart. The sleeping cat stirred, and the officer fired. It tumbled through the tree past a child's swing, ran behind a hedge, crossed a driveway, and lay down to die amid some cactus and lavender.

That is quite a bit of excitement for these parts, and it is not surprising that it has generated some headlines. What is surprising is the way a wildlife-control operation unleashed such a torrent of moralizing and outrage. Second-guessing and recriminations began immediately. KPIX showed a video of the shooting to Alfredo Kuba, a member of a group called In Defense of Animals. "I think it's absolutely atrocious the way the police behaved," Kuba told them. "Obviously the animal was not posing a threat to anyone. It was in a tree."

Meanwhile, the Palo Alto Daily News headlined Wednesday's paper with "Lion's Killing Sparks Furor." It included a picture of flowers and written tributes left at the base of the tree, including this eulogy: "Your death will not be in vain. Tears are shed for you, and this brutality will inspire ACTION. You are loved." (This was not the only written message directed to a specific animal in connection to this incident. The San Jose Mercury News reported that the owners of Kelsey, the Labrador retriever who chased the cougar up a tree, received an e-mail calling their dog a "traitor to animal-kind.")

The letters page of the Daily News carried four notes condemning the shooting. A letter asked where the "backup plan" was to prevent the suffering of the dying animal. Another from a South African biology student faulted the "trigger-happy", "incompetent" police for not packing adequate firepower, and noted that the lion was not a threat because it was chased up a tree by a dog. Another allowed that, had the cat been "alert and aggressively approaching something or someone, then shooting the animal might have been the only option," but insisted there had been time for "trained professionals to be brought in."

A fourth letter — by Robert More of Palo Alto — compared the shooting of the mountain lion to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and found both unnecessary. "It seems to me that what is potentially dangerous is the attitude that we need to annihilate anything determined to be potentially dangerous."

I disagree with More’s conclusions, but we both draw the same analogy from this situation: There are underlying cultural ideas at work that inform reactions both to the cougar's shooting and to the war in Iraq. It is not a perfect analogy: The young cougar was a genuinely beautiful creature and its death is regrettable, while Saddam Hussein’s regime was a hellish travesty of government mourned only by the deluded and the complicit. Nevertheless, these (over)reactions to the cougar’s demise stem from some of the same ideas that drive opposition to the current worldwide war against terrorism. Whether on the local scale of a dangerous predator loose in the neighborhood, or on the grand scale of rogue states that sponsor terror and proliferate weapons, many of the same ideas about the legitimate uses of force shine through.

Idea #1: Weapons are bad, and taint those who use them.

The comment that "trained professionals" should have handled the situation ignores the fact the officer who killed the mountain lion was herself a trained professional, not some jackleg vigilante. There is a notion shared throughout these letters and comments that the force used was excessive, and that a tranquilizer gun should have been employed. But tranquilizer guns are not instantaneously effective, and they are not standard issue. There was no non-lethal option at hand that could neutralize the threat quickly. The officer on the scene could have stood there wishing for such a device, but instead she did her job with the best tools and judgment at her disposal.

In the right hands, tools like that rifle make civilization possible. Without them, we'd be up to our navels in mountain lions, or worse; and we'd have no time for civilized pursuits like writing panegyrics to feline martyrs and e-mailing canine traitors.

On an international scale, weapons under the command of a competent and disciplined military are especially good for deterring human threats, because humans are social animals that can occasionally learn from others' experiences. An excellent example of this sort of behavior is Muammar Qaddafi's relinquishing of Libya's WMD programs. After seeing how dictatorial regimes like Taliban Afghanistan, Saddam's Iraq, and Charles Taylor's (remember him?) Liberia fared against American resolve, Qaddafi folded, without a shot being fired. This example is antithetical, however, to the blue-state mantra that violence absolutely never solves anything.

Idea #2: We had it coming.

What do you expect, when development expands relentlessly into the habitats of wild creatures? Each new house and road and parking lot destroys more habitat area, and then the creatures have nowhere to go. We have two choices: somehow stop the expansion of civilization, or learn to live with bears rifling through our garbage, deer crashing through our windshields, and mountain lions carrying off the occasional cyclist. A third option, resisting these incursions, would be immoral, since we are all complicit in prosperity's depredations and the animals don't know any better.

The same principle is writ large in the opposition to the war on terror. Western success, according to anarchist philosopher Franz Fanon, rests on slavery and oppression — an idea shared by both the American and European Left, and the terrorists. So what do you expect when unjust Western prosperity establishes a toehold? It causes an inevitable reaction, in the form of terrorism. This principle assumes that, like wild animals, potential terrorists are utterly incapable of exercising the restraint we demand of ourselves. This idea is dreadfully condescending, of course, as well as wrong: See Qaddafi, above.

Idea #3: Treed animals don't pose a threat. And Saddam was up a tree.

Nice theory — but in fact, threatened, cornered, or wounded animals are at their most desperate and dangerous.

Saddam was boxed in, all right. The problem was that the population of Iraq was boxed in with him, and paying a terrible price for our forbearance. And the other problem is that through the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program, through payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and through relationships with terrorists like Abu Abbas, Abu Musad Al-Zarqawi, and possibly even Mohammed Atta, Saddam continued to threaten and corrupt the world.

Idea #4: A deadly attack must be imminent to justify deadly force.
In criminal law, this statement is strictly true. But when dealing with rogue nations or terrorist groups seeking WMDs, just as against stealthy predators in the neighborhood sizing up the schoolchildren, imminent is far too late. As President Bush put it in his 2003 State of the Union address, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

Considering this list of reasons shows how simplistic and wrong it is to accuse the antiwar left of cowardice. In fact, they are quite brave — I would even say reckless — to bear the risks of predatory felines and predatory states so cheerfully (if, that is, they truly understand the risks.) But that bravery is simply the logical outcome of these deeply held, deeply flawed principles that deem effective resistance to be immoral. Stoic resignation is the only option left to them.

I, on the other hand, remain an unabashed coward. Hungry cougars, sarin-spewing terrorists, nukemongering dictators — I lack the courage and the intellectual agility required to keep on ignoring them. Threats to civilization must be confronted, with deadly force when necessary. Waving our arms around, shouting, and trying to look big is no way to go through life.

— Clinton W. Taylor is a lawyer and a Ph.D. student in political science at Stanford.

[carbonmotion]

I would like to put this article up as an explanation of the rationale by both groups. It puts the argument in the context of a local event that happened in Palo Alto, CA.
Cleverly written article, but hardly a unbiased view. You know I can spend 10 minutes on ProQuest and get a hand full of anti-war views by academic heavyweights from Harvard, Cornell, Umich, Northwestern, Duke, UC-b, UCLA, Stanford, Georgetown U... etc etc etc... there are probably alot more anti-war academic view then pro war. In fact if arn garentee that I wont be kicked, I can post the 13 papers that I have sleeping on my HD 4 from Umich, the rest slip among the ivy and almost ivy heavyweights with a few UN offical's views mixed in for good measure. However, I'll probably get banned for spamming.

[skunk]

When a treaty is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. But, here is the question. The UN charter, is not a treaty. It is a membership. As such, is is part of the constitution? Does it overrule the countries ability to make war?
The US, like all other signatories, voluntarily signed away the ability to make war except in very carefully limited circumstances. These criteria were not met. This is the whole crux of the matter: this is why the WH was trying to persuade everyone that there was an imminent threat, since this was the ONLY way you could invade Iraq while abiding by your treaty obligations. The fact that the WH failed, and went ahead anyway, makes the whole operation illegal.

[sushi]

It is in the quote. If a treaty is made, then it becomes part of the supreme law of the land. IE the constitution.
Thanks.

But my read is different in that this paragraph concerns states vice federal government concerning treaties.

But it's 0400, and my brain is quickly dying...so I will have to pick this up tomorrow.

Sushi

[carbonmotion]

Thanks.

But my read is different in that this paragraph concerns states vice federal government concerning treaties.

But it's 0400, and my brain is quickly dying...so I will have to pick this up tomorrow.

Sushi All federal laws take precident over state laws. This is the fundamental of the us consititution.

[jelloshotsrule]

Why would Clinton? He hated Saddam more than Bush 1, and remember, Saddam was behind a plot to have Bush 1 assassinated.

how can you really say that "clinton hated saddam more than..."?

just curious why/where you get this from?

[carbonmotion]

BTM in another forum you said that some of the bad things that happend is just a bad aspect of war... now we are hearing aligations of US soldiers raping iraqi women and torturing iraqi men including hedious sexual tortures that are definately banned by geneva. Isn't possible to fight a war without these aspects? We've done it before, but why isnt it happening now? Why are the US troops acting like serbian occupiers of albania, raping women and tortuing men. Is our military no better then those very serbs we uprooted in 97? Do as we say , but not as we do?

[Backtothemac]

BTM in another forum you said that some of the bad things that happend is just a bad aspect of war... now we are hearing aligations of US soldiers raping iraqi women and torturing iraqi men including hedious sexual tortures that are definately banned by geneva. Isn't possible to fight a war without these aspects? We've done it before, but why isnt it happening now? Why are the US troops acting like serbian occupiers of albania, raping women and tortuing men. Is our military no better then those very serbs we uprooted in 97? Do as we say , but not as we do?

You are compairing the actions of a small number of soldiers to the actions of an army. That is not fair!

[carbonmotion]

You are compairing the actions of a small number of soldiers to the actions of an army. That is not fair! Why not? Soldiers are the direct reflection of the army that they serve. The army controls them and are therefore directly held responsible for their actions. If one soldier rapes one civilian, then the military raped that civilian and in essense the government that sponsered the military raped that civilian. The people who picked that government are also no without guilt. See the chain of progressive guilt here?

[zimv20]

You are compairing the actions of a small number of soldiers to the actions of an army. That is not fair!
assuming the percentage of soldiers involved is indeed small, how far up the chain do you think it goes? do you believe that the techniques did indeed originate w/ rumsfeld?

[Frohickey]

Cleverly written article, but hardly a unbiased view. You know I can spend 10 minutes on ProQuest and get a hand full of anti-war views by academic heavyweights from Harvard, Cornell, Umich, Northwestern, Duke, UC-b, UCLA, Stanford, Georgetown U... etc etc etc... there are probably alot more anti-war academic view then pro war. In fact if arn garentee that I wont be kicked, I can post the 13 papers that I have sleeping on my HD 4 from Umich, the rest slip among the ivy and almost ivy heavyweights with a few UN offical's views mixed in for good measure. However, I'll probably get banned for spamming.

Is it considered spamming if you just post the urls of all of these articles you are talking about?

[carbonmotion]

assuming the percentage of soldiers involved is indeed small, how far up the chain do you think it goes? do you believe that the techniques did indeed originate w/ rumsfeld?i can see it now uncle rummy jerking off in a chair as he watches the video feed of iraqi women being brutalized... "daz how my pappi said we shud treat 'em..."

[Frohickey]

Why not? Soldiers are the direct reflection of the army that they serve. The army controls them and are therefore directly held responsible for their actions. If one soldier rapes one civilian, then the military raped that civilian and in essense the government that sponsered the military raped that civilian. The people who picked that government are also no without guilt. See the chain of progressive guilt here?

So, are you saying that the atrocities that John F. Kerry committed in Vietnam are not his fault but the fault of the US Military?

I guess if that viewpoint were to be taken to its logical conclusion, we would consider sins of the father as sins of the son, and vice versa.

The US is fairly unique in the world. We are about the one ones that would put our own soldiers in court martial to punish a wrongful deed. You don't see Saddam doing that to this Republican guard. You didn't see that happening in Hitler's Nazi Germany. I wonder if that ever happened in the Soviet Union.

[jelloshotsrule]

i can see it now uncle rummy jerking off in a chair as he watches the video feed of iraqi women being brutalized... "daz how my pappi said we shud treat 'em..."

this might be a bit over the line.....

[carbonmotion]

So, are you saying that the atrocities that John F. Kerry committed in Vietnam are not his fault but the fault of the US Military?

I guess if that viewpoint were to be taken to its logical conclusion, we would consider sins of the father as sins of the son, and vice versa.

The US is fairly unique in the world. We are about the one ones that would put our own soldiers in court martial to punish a wrongful deed. You don't see Saddam doing that to this Republican guard. You didn't see that happening in Hitler's Nazi Germany. I wonder if that ever happened in the Soviet Union. Britian, Germany, France, Switerland, Spain, and many many other first world nations submit their troops to the jursdiction of the international court. The United States does not; many of the troops and their commanding officers not only should face US Court Martial, but also be tried for crimes against humanity in Geneva.

[skunk]

The US is fairly unique in the world. We are about the one ones that would put our own soldiers in court martial to punish a wrongful deed.
This is an astonishingly ill-informed, jingoistic, arrogant and foolish statement. You can't seriously believe this.

[Frohickey]

This is an astonishingly ill-informed, jingoistic, arrogant and foolish statement. You can't seriously believe this.

Lets see. What is happening now? Aren't we court martialing our soldiers?

[skunk]

Lets see. What is happening now? Aren't we court martialing our soldiers?
Don't be obtuse.

[Neserk]

That is not fair!

Wow... that is a middle school response if I ever heard one...

[Frohickey]

Don't be obtuse.

Are we, or aren't we court martialing US soldiers right now for misdeeds committed against people that just recently were trying to kill us?

[skunk]

Are we, or aren't we court martialing US soldiers right now for misdeeds committed against people that just recently were trying to kill us?
Of course. But so does every other army in the "civilized" world. Nothing unique in that.
Most other countries are not afraid to answer to the ICJ as well. You are.
Besides which, 70-90% of the detainees weren't doing ANYTHING. Arbitrary justice is no justice.

[Frohickey]

Of course. But so does every other army in the "civilized" world. Nothing unique in that.
Most other countries are not afraid to answer to the ICJ as well. You are.
Besides which, 70-90% of the detainees weren't doing ANYTHING. Arbitrary justice is no justice.

I support staying away from the ICJ. And fear has nothing to do with it.

[skunk]

I support staying away from the ICJ. And fear has nothing to do with it.
It seems to be good enough for your enemies. Unfortunately, your Constitution is based on the somewhat arrogant premise that you are God's gift to the unenlightened, so your justice should be good enough for anyone, right?

But why am I second-guessing you? I'm sure you'll share your reasons. :rolleyes:

[numediaman]

Shouldn't the ICJ be moved from the "old" Europe to the "new" Europe.

(The new Europe = Texas.)