Brave people start wars others fight in?

[EN[i]GMA]

Nothing to say. Discuss.

[Funkaloyd]

What's there to discuss? Warmongers never fight in their own wars, yet their propaganda machines convince a lot of people that they're indeed brave. It's been like that for a long time.

[ASsman]

The bourgeoisie start the war, the ignorant masses fight and die.

[sneakyimp]

interestingly--and i know this might sound like elitism or snobbery--the poor, uneducated folks are also very easy to incite to violence. if they knew better, they wouldn't fight or sign up for the army. it's a terrible for them...some education would be really good for them...or do i mean us??

[D_Raay]

interestingly--and i know this might sound like elitism or snobbery--the poor, uneducated folks are also very easy to incite to violence. if they knew better, they wouldn't fight or sign up for the army. it's a terrible for them...some education would be really good for them...or do i mean us??
God I hope not

[Spanishbomb808]

We need to employ suicide bomber too.

[Grasshopper]

I feel like reading Albert Camus. :confused: (lb)

[racer5.0stang]

interestingly--and i know this might sound like elitism or snobbery--the poor, uneducated folks are also very easy to incite to violence. if they knew better, they wouldn't fight or sign up for the army. it's a terrible for them...some education would be really good for them...or do i mean us??

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.

[Funkaloyd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WeFightCartoon.jpg

[Whois]

We need to employ suicide bomber too.

You heard him gizmo, strap on that belt and go kill some Iraqis for Jeebus.

[Whois]

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.

Another clueless poster, welcome!

[D_Raay]

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.
BOO!! BOO!! Boogy boogy boogy.. BOO!!

[infidel]

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.He's right, without the fools who join up we all know the terrorists will come kill our families at night,

[racer5.0stang]

BOO!! BOO!! Boogy boogy boogy.. BOO!!

This coming from someone who wants to elect Gore? Sounds a/b right.

[Loppfessor]

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.


Well said my friend. Besides I'd say the vast majority of the poeple in the military do not join hoping to go to war. That kind of thinking is just ignorant. I'd say the number one reason is to get the education benefits.

[Ace42]

If we didn't have an army who would fight? Who would defend our country against those who come to destroy us? We should be thankful that there are people still in this country who would lay their life on the the line so that we can sit at these computers and complain about it.

Funny, that is word for word what Moqtada Al Sadr told the Iraqi insurgents over the website the decapitations featured on. Are you him?

Either way, congratulations, you just made a great argument for armed Iraqis to shoot US soldiers in the face.

[Loppfessor]

Funny, that is word for word what Moqtada Al Sadr told the Iraqi insurgents over the website the decapitations featured on. Are you him?

Either way, congratulations, you just made a great argument for armed Iraqis to shoot US soldiers in the face.

Do you ever pull your head out of your ass to like take a breath or anything?

[Ace42]

I do, but I see fuckwits like you, so I stuff it back in ASAP to be in better company.

[racer5.0stang]

Funny, that is word for word what Moqtada Al Sadr told the Iraqi insurgents over the website the decapitations featured on. Are you him?

Either way, congratulations, you just made a great argument for armed Iraqis to shoot US soldiers in the face.

What part are you refering to? All I am saying is that if most people were like the people who post on this board, then our military and nation would be in great danger because there would be no one to defend it. I was not reading this board three years ago when 9/11 occured but I would be willing to bet that the majority of people here (on this board) wanted blood for what happened. Now, in present time, people have had time to analyze every detail and throw in their two cents about it. If one of your family members was in the World Trade Center wouldn't you want justice? All anyone wants to do is complain about who did what wrong three years after the fact. The original wrong was the Taliban using our planes carrying our citizens, and flying them into those buildings. If you were President at that time what would you have done?

[racer5.0stang]

He's right, without the fools who join up we all know the terrorists will come kill our families at night,

It is not just terrorists that I was referring to. You obviously have no concern for human life.

[Ace42]

What part are you refering to?

The part where you failed to realise that the soldiers the US military have been killing are people who signed up for exactly the same thing. The only difference being that they were defending their country WHILST IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

All I am saying is that if most people were like the people who post on this board, then our military and nation would be in great danger because there would be no one to defend it.

So the US didn't have an army before September the 11th 2003? Oh, that's right, they did and it didn't make the slightest bit of difference.

I was not reading this board three years ago when 9/11 occured but I would be willing to bet that the majority of people here (on this board) wanted blood for what happened.

A lot of them quite possibly, a lot of people have knee-jerk reactions when manipulated by the media. Doesn't make it acceptable. Do you think a lot of Iraqis didn't want blood after the first gulf war? Their loss is of a much higher order than that suffered by the US under Sept 11th. Your form of "justice" - if applied fairly, would make Sept 11th only a very small part of the retribution they owe the US.

Now, in present time, people have had time to analyze every detail and throw in their two cents about it.

My opinion hasn't changed at all since the second it happened. It's called being "level headed" - although if you ask lopprofessor, it's called being an asshole. He will probably neglect to infer that makes Bush's static opinion assholic.

If one of your family members was in the World Trade Center wouldn't you want justice? All anyone wants to do is complain about who did what wrong three years after the fact. The original wrong was the Taliban using our planes carrying our citizens, and flying them into those buildings. If you were President at that time what would you have done?

jus·tice Audio pronunciation of "justice" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.

So, fairness. Over 100,000 innocent Iraqis (mainly women and children) died during the first Gulf War.

As a result of the bombing of facilities essential to civilian life, residential and other civilian buildings and areas, at least 125,000 men, women and children were killed. The Red Crescent Society of Jordan estimated 113,000 civilian dead, 60% children, the week before the end of the war.

So, half a dozen individual terrorists, who have nothing to do with Iraq, steal a few planes, and turn them into unguided bombs, killing 3,000 civilians.

However, a decade earlier, the US:

The United States reports it flew 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. 93% of the bombs were free falling bombs, most dropped from higher than 30,000 feet. Of the remaining 7% of the bombs with electronically guided systems, more than 25% missed their targets, nearly all caused damage primarily beyond any identifiable target. Most of the targets were civilian facilities.

Now. Is it "fair" in your opinion, that the US caused 33 times as much death, and destruction that had long-lasting effects that were still being felt when they went in a second time, in return for 1/33rd of the suffering they (totally different arabs) caused?

What is fair about one American life being worth 33 other people's lives?

If *MY* family had been in the WTC, I'd've not felt killing 33 innocent people in their place was a good idea.

Of course, the figures ar GENEROUS to the US. Amnesty and other organisations place the toll much higher, especially due to ongoing suffering like poor sanitation and illness, not to mention the lasting effects of depleted Uranium slugs lying all around the place. And the cluster-bomblets still sitting around the desert.

Now, add to that the number of Palestinians killed by the helicopter gunships the US has sold to Israel (which is unconstitutional) and that adds a lot more misery.

So, how do you determine what is "fair" - if it is number of lives, then the US is still owed another 33 world trade centre size disasters just to make up; the bad karma from Gulf war I. If it is in terms of breaking treaties and UN rules, the US has managed to equal Saddam, Kofi Annan himself stating that the war was illegal. If it is in moral terms, then it is more debatable, but I would say that a couple of desperate disenfranchised people who've seen the horrors perpetrated against their kinsman (and quite possibly lost friends and family) by the US trying to get revenge is marginally less immoral than a bunch of soldiers / bombers / generals / politicians who are making *MONEY* out of war with Iraq.

Of course, that is ignoring the fact that Bush did not make a "mistake" in invading Iraq. He knew there was nothing to do with Al Qaeda going on there, and he chose to disregard the intelligence that didn't tell hi mwhat to hear. Invading Iraq was purely a political exercise, the idea that it has (or was going to) defend the US from anything is a joke of the worst sort.

[Bob]

kerry wants to raise your taxes

[D_Raay]

kerry wants to raise your taxes
Hehe, thank god for you Bob (y)

[D_Raay]

This coming from someone who wants to elect Gore? Sounds a/b right.
First of all, my avatar represents that the people actually voted for Gore in 2000 not in my actually supporting him. I just think it's comical that he won the popular vote and lost the election(thanks to good ol' Jeb). Second, my "BOO" remark was a comedic approach to your scare tactic post that the republicans have become so comfortable with. I had to clear that up so i could then insert my head back into my ass comfortably without the feeling that I had left a question out there unanswered.

[racer5.0stang]

I am sorry Ace42 but you have entirely too much time on your hands. I quit reading that insanely long post after the first couple of lines. Arent you supposed to be at work? I am glad that you have mastered your cut and paste skills, now on to typing without looking at your hands. You liberals take everything too seriously. Just because my opinion isnt the same as your opinion, don't get offended.

And D_Raay thanks for clearing that up! LOL

[Apollo Creed]

"At the next war let all the Kaisers, presidents and generals and diplomats go into a big field and fight it out first among themselves. That will satisfy us and keep us at home."

-All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930

[EN[i]GMA]

In other words:

Ace42, I read your entire post and realized I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about. Instead of conceding I decided to put on a patronizing clown face and go around acting like I do something even remotely important. I fully realize that you grasp the concept far more well than I do yet I am an ignorant moron who would much rather be wrong and not have to concede defeat than right and and have something bruise my over-large ego.

I think my version is a little more accurate but whatever.

And someone isn't "offended" when they calmy and cooly defeat your arguement making it seem absurd to the point of hilarity. You my friend, are a douchebag.

[infidel]

What part are you refering to? All I am saying is that if most people were like the people who post on this board, then our military and nation would be in great danger because there would be no one to defend it.Maybe if most people in the US were like the people on this board then no one would have a reason to attack us.

I was not reading this board three years ago when 9/11 occured but I would be willing to bet that the majority of people here (on this board) wanted blood for what happened. I still want blood, bush's, the fucker who was asleep at the wheel and allowed 9/11 to happen.

[ASsman]

Nice job Racer, you totally told him. Remember when you can no longer continue to support your argument, attack the person personaly. I think its kind of like mud-slinging. But due to your ignorace Im unsure if you will grasp these "complex" points spoken here.

[Ace42]

I am sorry Ace42 but you have entirely too much time on your hands.

You don't think the death of 100,000 innocent people is worth my time? But the death of 3,000 is worth everyone's time, right? Even their lives going to a a different country to fight people that had nothing to do with Sept 11th.

I quit reading that insanely long post after the first couple of lines.

The fact that you think you can formulate the sum total of a complex issue in less lines than it takes to type up just a few of the international laws the US has broken says more than your reply. As for insanely long, there is a limit to the size of postings here, as this was a "single poster" I think insanely long is quite an exaggeration.

I am glad that you have mastered your cut and paste skills,

Actually, this was a particularly bad cut and paste job as I forgot to paste my sources. However, as I use this particular source regularly, you can search the forum for some of the text and get the link from one of my other posts. But that would involve some more reading, and thus actually learning something, so don't worry, I don't expect you to.

now on to typing without looking at your hands.

Even using just one hand, I could type faster than you read, judging by your complaining about the size of a relatively brief post.

You liberals take everything too seriously.

Funny, if I started cracking jokes about Sept 11th, I'd be told off for trivialising the issue. Or is a little Iraqi girl having her face blown off "not funny enough" for your liking?

Here's a joke for you, What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? Liberal politicians get money for preventing people getting killed.

Oh wait, that's not funny. I guess that's because was murder isn't inherantly amusing.

[B I N G O]

interestingly--and i know this might sound like elitism or snobbery--the poor, uneducated folks are also very easy to incite to violence. if they knew better, they wouldn't fight or sign up for the army. it's a terrible for them...some education would be really good for them...or do i mean us??

Most individuals join the service to get out of the life they are currently in. They want a chance to get an education, they want to get away from the drugs and violence and better themselves. They aren't really expecting to go to war but are willing to take that chance out of hope of providing a better life for themselves and their families than the one they are living.

[yeahwho]

They aren't really expecting to go to war but are willing to take that chance out of hope of providing a better life for themselves and their families than the one they are living.

So True B I N G O, what if........http://www.moveonpac.com/10weeks/video/wildbrain/big/index.shtml

[racer5.0stang]

Nice job Racer, you totally told him. Remember when you can no longer continue to support your argument, attack the person personaly. I think its kind of like mud-slinging. But due to your ignorace Im unsure if you will grasp these "complex" points spoken here.

What are you talking a/b? I didn't attack anyone personally or other wise. And to my knowledge, there was no argument only discussion. Then people started getting offended, one even called me a douchebag. It would appear that I hit a nerve by saying what I have. I now see where this so called intellegence that you all claim to possess. Anyone can back up an opinion, all they have to find some brainwashed reporter on the internet and post whatever it is that they say. With all of the intellegence that I have seen on this board why didn't you guys stop 9/11? With all your websites and knowledge where were you then. And to be quite honest I did read your post, but you know what they say, if you can't say it in five minutes you can't say it in 30 minutes. And to the comment about if most people were like the people on this board, if that were true this country would be ruled by terrorists, because all you want to is sit back on your computer and groan and complain a/b the country that you live in. Instead of getting out and doing something about it. Hey I know why don't you go serve in a war, then injure yourself three times, get three purple hearts, and then go to the White House and protest. There is a good candidate. I just hope that at least half of you will actually vote for whoever in Nov. Oh yeah who said I was a republican?

[racer5.0stang]

And in response to Ace42, about the Iraqi children, who do you think are suicide bombers? It is not just Taliban Men. I assume that the Taliban are Muslims who follow the Koran. Which describes a major war called Jihad. Unless you convert to Muslim, you will be executed.

And lets not forget a/b the three Americans that were beheaded this week. They were civilians not military. What would you say to their families? Just tell them that we killed 100,000 of them in the Gulf War so it is ok.

I never said that the killing of innocent people is ok, but I do believe that the removal of a terrorist organization from power is neccessary. We should have brought down Saddam during the Gulf war. Don't forget that he used chemical weopons on his own people to test them. And that we had to have permission to search certain factories, before we took him from power. I guess he couldn't have taken the evidence and destroyed it or hidden it the vast area known as the desert.

[D_Raay]

Hey I know why don't you go serve in a war, then injure yourself three times, get three purple hearts, and then go to the White House and protest.
That's not true at all if you are referring to John Kerry. And you are primed for a serious ass ripping from Ace you know? Glad it's you not me.

[Ace42]

And in response to Ace42, about the Iraqi children, who do you think are suicide bombers?

That is the most stupid argument ever. Can you name a single Iraqi suicide bomber ever? Now name one that was a 6 year old girl. Saying that there are arab children who are militant terrorists, and thus killing arab children is ok is like saying there are American drug-dealers and murderers living in NY, so blowing up Americans is ok.

I assume that the Taliban are Muslims who follow the Koran. Which describes a major war called Jihad. Unless you convert to Muslim, you will be executed.

That is like assuming that all christians are homophobic sociopaths. There are plenty of Muslims who are totally tolerant of western societies and integrated. Ayatollah Sistani , for example, stresses the importance of tolerance of foreign customs, and obeying the rules of those countries. But hell, he is only a respected Muslim cleric, what would he know about his own religion? Surely not as much as fear-mongering speculation and misrepresentations washed down with a healthy dose of self-confessed assumption.


And lets not forget a/b the three Americans that were beheaded this week. They were civilians not military. What would you say to their families? Just tell them that we killed 100,000 of them in the Gulf War so it is ok.

Actually, two Americans and one Briton AFAIK. The Briton hasn't been executed yet. And according to his family's appearance on the BBC, they hold Blair and Bush responsible for exacerbating the situation. So I'd say to their families "It is very unfortunate that you have been fucked over by your respective governments yet again."

The brother of British hostage Kenneth Bigley says the US has "sabotaged" his brother's release by refusing to free a detained woman scientist in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3682246.stm

I never said that the killing of innocent people is ok, but I do believe that the removal of a terrorist organization from power is neccessary.

So, considering the US government has waged an illegal war and used chemical weapons on innocent civilians, thus technically engaging in acts of terrorism, you'd concede that 100,000 dead US civilians (actually, more proportionally) is totally justified in order to remove Bush and his administration from power? Will you be offering yourself as a victim to militants? Or will you be using your 2nd Amendment rights to engage in an armed rebellion and fight along side these people?

Don't forget that he used chemical weopons on his own people to test them.

And don't forget the incubator babies either! You know, the ones the US government cynically lied about bare-facedly.

Firstly, the Kurds were not his "own people." Secondly, there were numerous Kurdish rebel groups armed by the US fighting a war against him. Thirdly, the US war college believes the shell that gassed the Kurds came from IRAN not Iraq. Quite conceivably, considering that both sides in the Iran-Iraq war used chemical weapons. Fourthly, Winston Churchill advocated the gassing of the Kurds only 60 years earlier. Fifthly, the US used Chemical Weapons (Including depleted Uranium which is still causing radiation sickness in many areas of Iraq, and Napalm which is also outlawed by the geneva convention) so that argument really states that the US should be invaded just as much as Iraq. Actually, more so, as the US has and has used more proscribed weapons on more people in more places than Iran and Iraq combined.

I guess he couldn't have taken the evidence and destroyed it or hidden it the vast area known as the desert.

So, he was dangerous because he had WMDs that he was going to use against the US. However, when the US actually came to him, invaded his country, and left him with no choice but to retaliate, he decided that these weapons he had been saving for just such an occasion would be better off buried in the sand?

Pull the other one, it has WMDs on it.


If I were you (and thus believed that irrational guff) then I'd demand a massive tax rebate for the money wasted on spy satellites that can read newsprint from orbit, but can't find hulking great weapons laboratories, missile silos, etc etc.

[D_Raay]

Well said my friend. Besides I'd say the vast majority of the poeple in the military do not join hoping to go to war. That kind of thinking is just ignorant. I'd say the number one reason is to get the education benefits.
You know if this war was what they tell us it is about, then why did they lie about it to begin with? Why did they tell us about WMD's? Why did they claim Saddam was involved in 9/11 somehow? Why is there so much cynicism out there? Why do people like you Lopp who seem to be a good enough American young man just swallow whatever is served up to you? I appreciate the military too like anyone would, it's rather silly to think anyone of us don't, but it's that very reason that we get pissed off about this whole situation. Young men and women are dying and there shouldn't be any, I repeat ANY, doubt that their death is necessary. The very fact that there is doubt makes this administration's credibility questionable. I mean look at how they handle an election. The same as they have handled this war, they spin and spin and spin. And we are the ones who suffer, especially our military and their families. Would you like to tell the mother of one of these men or women killed what you post here so non-chalantly?

[racer5.0stang]

It has been great talking with you guys. It has been the highlight of the day. With all this political knowledge that you seem to possess and retain, you should run for some office.

D_Raay, nice avatar. Oh yeah, sounds like you know from personal experience.

How do you select a particular part of a post and put it in your reply?

I didn't say all of the suicide bombers were children, but apparently you missed that broadcast. There in fact have been children that have had bombs strapped to them and been told to go some public place and boom. I also never said killing women and children is ok.

[EN[i]GMA]

He's another sisko alias more than likely. I can tell them from a mile off.

Carries on the tradition with a stupid alias and broken English.

[racer5.0stang]

GMA']He's another sisko alias more than likely. I can tell them from a mile off.

Carries on the tradition with a stupid alias and broken English.

I'm sorry we didn't include you in the conversation, but here is your chance to say something w/ some intellegence. I wish my alias was as cool as yours (y) .

I don't know who sisko is, I assume all you do is try to belittle him w/ some ignorant post. If you had something to say that is constuctive and worth while people might actually start paying you some of the attention that you are frantic to get.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yep, it's him. And my name does rule.

[Funkaloyd]

Don't forget that he used chemical weopons on his own people

There's a State Department report which suggests that he first used chemical weapons on Kurds just months before Rumsfeld went over there to strengthen ties.

[Ace42]

I didn't say all of the suicide bombers were children, but apparently you missed that broadcast.

And yet in the first Iraq war, no effort was made to differentiate. You can't tell me that a free falling bomb, possible of levelling an area the size of a US football field, only targets the "ones that might become suicide bombers 10 years in the future when they stop being children anyway." In US law (like in all civilised societies) one is innocent until presumed guilty. As there was no effort to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent, it was clearly an unlawful killing. Of course, international law (in specific, the UN charter) also expressly forbids the killing of civillians.

There in fact have been children that have had bombs strapped to them and been told to go some public place and boom. I also never said killing women and children is ok.

This is news to me, but I can see it being more than likely it has occured at least once. I am sure there are numerous Iraqi orphans who have a score to settle with the people that killed the families and destroyed their homes.

And you say killing women and children isn't ok? You support the US army and government in an illegal war in which many many women and children have died. Ten years before, in another illegal war, many more died as well. This wasn't a hideous accident. You think the US army didn't know that carpet bombing cities, napalming highly traversed roads, destroying electricity, hospitals, schools, residential districts, etc, etc would result in massive loss of life?

ter·ror·ism Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How is "shock and awe" *not* terrorism?

Either way, as the US has committed more and bigger terrorist acts, been responsible for more innocent people's deaths, and more destruction of property and infrastructure, etc, then the US army should currently be fighting its government and then itself. Unless of course, the US army only exists as a tool of imperialism, in which case terrorism, regime change, WMDs, UN sanctions, etc etc is just bullshit and manipulation of every other nation (and every member of those nation's electorates) in the world.

So, it comes down to this - a mass murderer (the US) might well be the strongest and best fighter on the block, but would you want him to be the one to guard you?

[yeahwho]

Don't forget that he used chemical weopons on his own people

There's a State Department report which suggests that he first used chemical weapons on Kurds just months before Rumsfeld went over there to strengthen ties. Quote; Funkaloyd




I am wondering to myself, hmmmm, let's see, uh, where oh where did that bad man Saddam get all those chemical weapons? Who could of given them to him? How did he get all this stuff? We all, including the USA have helped him along in his quest to make chemical weapons. Why? Bubblin' Crude dude.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Chemical/3883.html

[Ace42]

Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm

Regarding the Halabjah incident where Iraqi soldiers were reported to have gassed their own Kurdish citizens, the USAWC investigators observed: “It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraq-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemical weapons in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.” [The Iranians thought the Kurds had fled Halabjah and that they were attacking occupying Iraqi forces. But the Iraqis had already vacated Halabjah and the Kurds had returned. Iran gassed the Kurds by accident]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=iran+gas+kurds&btnG=Google+Search

[D_Raay]

So, it comes down to this - a mass murderer (the US) might well be the strongest and best fighter on the block, but would you want him to be the one to guard you?
You resent the US for dragging your country into this shit don't you Ace?

[yeahwho]

Yep. This is probably too much information for Flunkaloyd to read and comprehend. I know he has an answer for people like us. His mind is (has been) made up. He's right, we're wrong. So, how do you convince folks that maybe, just maybe what their told doesn't correspond with what years of research shows? That is the real problem. Scary stuff, `eh?

[Ace42]

Only in that it makes my country seem ignorant in the eyes of others, and puts UK citizens at unnecessary risk, increases the taxes UK citizens need to pay to support the cost of the war, makes a mockery of the security council, etc, etc.

So I guess a bit.

Of course, I resent Blair's total hypocrisy as well, exposing just how morally, ethically, and legislatively weak our government actually is.

[Ace42]

Yep. This is probably too much information for Flunkaloyd to read and comprehend.

I think you misunderstood his post. I took it to mean he was criticising the US support of Saddam when they were all pally pally.

[D_Raay]

Only in that it makes my country seem ignorant in the eyes of others, and puts UK citizens at unnecessary risk, increases the taxes UK citizens need to pay to support the cost of the war, makes a mockery of the security council, etc, etc.

So I guess a bit.

Of course, I resent Blair's total hypocrisy as well, exposing just how morally, ethically, and legislatively weak our government actually is.
Yeah it's a bit of a shame that we are dragging the british down with us when in actually it is primarily the government's involved that are culpable.

[yeahwho]

I think you misunderstood his post. I took it to mean he was criticising the US support of Saddam when they were all pally pally.

If so, I'm sorry to Flunkaloyd. Long day at the saltmines, my bad.

[racer5.0stang]

Unfortunatly, there are innocent casualties in war. The US has dropped leaflets describing what will happen to a particular area, on a specific date, and at a particular time. And if you are there it is your own fault. Granted, 10 years ago we did not have the smart bombs that would target a specific building and not a football field, but there were warnings none the less. In fact there is a difference between war and terrorism. War obviously has rules and guidelines to follow where as terrorism does not. Unfortunatly there are war crimes, just look at the private who was brought up on charges for posing with the captured soldiers. If 9/11 had not happened we would not be at war today. I do not know the entire story w/ the war, and I for one wish it never happened, but we are here now, and we have to finish what we started. If we don't, another terrorist group could come in and take over Iraq and we are back to square one.

[edb1821]

I still want blood, bush's, the fucker who was asleep at the wheel and allowed 9/11 to happen.

You're right. He should've been standing outside the WTC waiting for the planes so he could shoot them down.

[D_Raay]

The US has dropped leaflets describing what will happen to a particular area, on a specific date, and at a particular time. And if you are there it is your own fault.
You've got to be kidding me. You actually believe this????!!! Like they would inform the enemy of the specific date, area, and time they were going to bomb?
Hey, I've got this bridge for sale, it's an old bridge, but it's really really nice I promise..
Besides that, do you actually think they would trust anything we "dropped" over there? In the beginning, we would bomb and bomb,and then drop yellow food packages filled with peanut butter and pop tarts. Then bomb again, food , bomb, take a guess what color the bombs were? Yellow. It's like survivor real life. I am so pissed off at you right wing boys on this site. You take death much to lightly and it will come back to haunt you.

[Ace42]

Unfortunatly, there are innocent casualties in war.

Innocent casualties on THEIR side. Let me ask you this - would you be happy if your government said "we're going to kill 100,000 innocent citizens from OUR nation to guarantee our safety from terrorism" ? What if it was your family? It's very easy to say their deaths were necessary when it is other people's lives you are talking about. Al Qaeda think the deaths of innocent US citizens are a necessary evil. Isn't it hypocritical to say that when they do it, they are the evil ones, but when the US does it, it is "ok" ?

Granted, 10 years ago we did not have the smart bombs that would target a specific building and not a football field

Of the remaining 7% of the bombs with electronically guided systems, more than 25% missed their targets, nearly all caused damage primarily beyond any identifiable target. Most of the targets were civilian facilities.

There were laser-guided "smart" bombs then, they were only used occasionaly (due to the expense) and when they were used, they missed. This has not changed, RE: The clearly marked red cross hospital in Afghanistan that got bombed. The clsuter bombs that take out an area the size of a football field are and were illegal weapons of mass destruction, and should not have been used at all. They were not used because "there was no alternative."

The US has dropped leaflets describing what will happen to a particular area, on a specific date, and at a particular time. And if you are there it is your own fault. (...) but there were warnings none the less.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=31265&highlight=military+vehicles

Where was the warning there? Or were various newscasters and reuters jsut too stupid to know about it? What when BBC reporter John Simpson's press convoy (WITH US ESCORT) got shot at by an A-10, killing some camera crew?

What about the 3 seperate news networks that got bombed by the US *on the same day* ?!?

You think they got told "this area will be bombed" and said "ah, fuck it, it'll be a better story if we die!"

You think their buddies in the official US media centre weren't told information that was being DROPPED ON THE FRIGGING ENEMY so they might be able to phone their reporters in the field and say "shit, get outta there?"

How do you warn people that a bomb is going to hit them, when it is supposed to be somewhere else? 25% did not hit what they were aimed at (those are of the GUIDED bombs) and thus did not land in an area where the people could've been warned. Furthermore, I think you are deluding yourself if you think the US warns people before it fires. If it did that, they'd not achieve any military objectives, as the rebels would just move out with the civillians and fight elsewhere.

Furthermore, where do you think homeless Iraqis can go to? The desert? A significant number of the civillians that have died in Afghanistan and Iraq have died from exposure. Can you guess who it is that dies first in a hostile climate with no air-con, no food or water, and minefields and irradiated chunks of ground all around? The babies, grannies, mothers and the sick and infirm.

In fact there is a difference between war and terrorism.

Indeed there is. It is war when it suits your purposes, and terrorism when it doesn't.


War obviously has rules and guidelines to follow where as terrorism does not. Unfortunatly there are war crimes, just look at the private who was brought up on charges for posing with the captured soldiers.

And the 19 point indictment Ramsey Clark brought against the US government for war crimes in the first Iraq war.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

If 9/11 had not happened we would not be at war today.

Bush was gunning for the war before he was even elected, it was one of his platforms. The war was unavoidable once he was elected. 9/11 just gave him the opportunity to brainwash you. "What a tragedy, I am so upset that my powers of rational thought have quite failed me, and thus I will hand all of my executive functions over to the establishment"

I do not know the entire story w/ the war

Well, it started with the US having massive fuel-guzzling cars and low taxes, had a bit in the middle where the petrochemical and automotive industry (both linked very closely to the military industrial complex) blocked any efforts to reduce dependance, and then got nasty with the US lying repeatedly to itself and others, and then at the end, they murdered some people so they could steal their oil.

I like to call this story "capitalism" aka "oil, lies, and weapons of mass destruction"

and I for one wish it never happened, but we are here now, and we have to finish what we started. If we don't, another terrorist group could come in and take over Iraq and we are back to square one.

"another" - Iraq was a sovereign nation until the US destroyed its infrastructure.

Considering the US has only ever made things worse, even when "finished what it started" (For example, giving military equipment and training to Bin Laden, ditto to Saddam, ditto to the Iraqi kurds, the Shah of Iran, etc etc) I can't think of a single case ever where the US has actually managed to make things better before bugging out. Infact, when the US did acutally just bug out of Vietnam, things improved relatively quickly AFAIK.

Yeah the US should clean up the mess they made, but they will only make things worse, just like always. And that is if they had a sensible plan, WHICH THEY DON'T.

When a doctor tries to cure a patient, the first hippocratic rule they follow is "to do no evil" - IE you do not make it worse. This isn't a rubik's cube, you can't just say "well I gotta keep twisting it, otherwise it'll never line up" - not only does it make it harder to unravel, but these are people's lives the policy makers are playing with. Thousands are dying.

[D_Raay]

Bush was gunning for the war before he was even elected, it was one of his platforms. The war was unavoidable once he was elected. 9/11 just gave him the opportunity to brainwash you. "What a tragedy, I am so upset that my powers of rational thought have quite failed me, and thus I will hand all of my executive functions over to the establishment"
You know what the scary thing is, I'll bet during those "7 minutes" the thought went through his mind "Yehaw, now I don't need a reason to invade Iraq". Maybe thats why he didn't move. Maybe they wanted to make sure the attack was carried out. Why stop it when it would suit their wants and needs so perfectly? Either that or they had knowledge it was coming and were in agreement that they would do nothing to stop it, rather cover it up as best they could. Hell, it's been done before. Look at the USS Liberty.

[Ace42]

And the USS vincennes.

[D_Raay]

And the USS vincennes.
Yeah, i had forgotten about that one (y)

[Ace42]

Yeah it's a bit of a shame that we are dragging the british down with us when in actually it is primarily the government's involved that are culpable.

Mr Salmond criticised Tony Blair over his decision to go to war in Iraq and claimed he was operating "beyond the pale of decency".

He told the conference: "This is not a question of this prime minister making a judgment call and just being wrong.

"It's not a matter of someone acting in good faith and making an honest mistake.

"This is a man who buried the information that was inconvenient, manipulated the intelligence that was convenient and entered into a secret pact with the American president to go to war come what may."

Mr Salmond said the prime minister should be "drummed from office", adding he "deserves to be impeached".

The SNP leader described impeachment as "a weapon of mass democracy - the final democratic deterrent against the abuse and misuses of executive power".

"We with others will present the case that he should be required to answer," Mr Salmond added.

"I believe that this prime minister now operates outside the currency of debate, beyond the pale of decency."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3685470.stm

Alex Salmond is teh mang.

[D_Raay]

Forgive my ignorance Ace, but what is SNP? Scottish National Party?

[Ace42]

Indeed, and you couldn't be expected to know that. They are not a major party in any conventional sense.