NationStates Jolt Archive

On this I have to disagree, by US Law and precedent, Mr. Walker did not commit "Treason", and therefore is not applicable under your penalty.

Actually, he could've been put to death because what he did was legally treason.

Under US Code Treason is defined as:

"The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power."

He fought on the side of the enemy. That is, to me at least, betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. That being the Taliban.

The #1 problem is the unconstitutionality of wars entered into by the United States after the end of World War

Unconstitutionality? WHat war has the US entered that wasn't approved by the US Congress? In the 90s and early part of this decade, the answer is none. All of them were approved by the US Congress. Gulf War I, Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all approved by Congress and therefore, is not unconstitutional. Try again please.

2. Under the "War Powers Act" congress may appropriate troops for presidential uses overseas, with congresional approval. However, this conveys war-powers to the president, while not constituting a Constitutionally valid "declaration of war" on the part of the legislature. That being said, under Constitutional Law, the United States has not been in war since the close of World War 2.

The Congress AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE against Iraq three times and AFghanistan once. I can pull the resolutions if you like. Because they authorized them, it is legal in the eyes of the law and therefore not unconstitutional. I had debates in my Presidency and Government college classes over this. My professor, a democrat, actually agreed with me.

Treason is also controled under constitutional law. Which effectively (in cases before the court) closes the possibility of treason out of cases arrising before the courts since that time.

Even though he deserved to be shot for betraying his country and taking up arms against his own country.

Had, and would the United States Government operate properly in its foundational boundries, and under its proper authority; this case may be different. However, as a person, who served in the United States Armed Forces, and swore an oath towards the Constitution, I cannot grant or support governmental acts which stands against their proper enumerated authority, or support the trial of Mr. Walker for treason, resultant from an undeclared military action outside of their properly enumerated powers.

My father currently serves in the USAF! He knows that this is legal. A cousin of mine is in the Navy and knows that this is legal as well. I know this is legal because I actually read up on this. Therefore, what he did is treason. However, this is all my opinion anyway and I'm not out to change anyone's opinion. Just voicing mine.

You are just not Patriot enough...

I just don't want to put up with all the BS Generals. They are politically appointed and are not fighters. Don't start questioning my patriotism OceanDrive you'll see just how much of a patriot I am. The last time someone questioned my patriotism, wound up talking out the otherside of his mouth.

you waiting for another 9-11 :confused:
what?... the first one was not enough for you?

I'm praying it doesn't happen. However, I wouldn't put it past the terrorists to us big again. I'm a realist so I look for problems :D

The last time someone questioned my patriotism, wound up talking out the otherside of his mouth.jesus Christ!!! I am so scared I just pissed on my boxers...

so i will try hard not to question your patriotism again...

Actually, he could've been put to death because what he did was legally treason.

Chief Justice Marshall, in United States vs. Burr (1807) disagrees with you.
As does Chief Justice Jackson, in United States vs. Cramer (1945).


He fought on the side of the enemy. That is, to me at least, betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. That being the Taliban.


Enemy as defined by whom? Not the United States Constitution.


Unconstitutionality? WHat war has the US entered that wasn't approved by the US Congress? In the 90s and early part of this decade, the answer is none. All of them were approved by the US Congress. Gulf War I, Operation Desert Fox, Afghanistan, and Gulf War II were all approved by Congress and therefore, is not unconstitutional. Try again please.

Approval by the Congress, and Congressional Declaration of War, are two seperate things.... The acts, post WW2, consisting of the Korean Conflict, Vietnamese Conflict, Gulf War, and the present, are enactments under the "War Powers Act", not the United States Constitution. The last time Congress issued a declaration of war, was December 8th, 1941... Under their properly enumerated powers. Since then, there has been no declaration of war by the United States government, as properly enumerated by powers in accordance with the United States Consitution.

The "War Powers Act" allows congress to authorize the president to use executive power over the armed forces, into ordering units into combat, without an expressed declaration of war.

Approved, is not declared. The purpose of the War Powers act, was for short order actions Article I, Section 8 - A and Article II, Section 2 - A. However, not an official declaration of war, as under Article I, Section 8 - K. There has not been one sucessful case of treason arrising under conflicts enacted under the War Powers Act... Or indeed, in any conflict which has ensued without an official declaration of war, by the legislature, since the inception of the United States Constitution.

I have the United States Constitution, and ~ 200 years of case law behind me on this. You have nothing. Bye bye now, you try again.


The Congress AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE against Iraq three times and AFghanistan once. I can pull the resolutions if you like. Because they authorized them, it is legal in the eyes of the law and therefore not unconstitutional. I had debates in my Presidency and Government college classes over this. My professor, a democrat, actually agreed with me.


It is legal, under the Law, however, it is not a Constitutional act of war. Of which treason applied. The Act itself, is not Constitutional as per the enumerated powers regarding War, of the United States government.


Even though he deserved to be shot for betraying his country and taking up arms against his own country.

He didn't deserve anything.


My father currently serves in the USAF! He knows that this is legal. A cousin of mine is in the Navy and knows that this is legal as well. I know this is legal because I actually read up on this. Therefore, what he did is treason. However, this is all my opinion anyway and I'm not out to change anyone's opinion. Just voicing mine.

It is a legal act, however, it is not a "war", it is the president using war-powers, with approval of congress... But not a declared war, by the United States Legislature as per Article I, Section 8, paragraph K of the United States Constitution.

Even if you could push through your sophist rhetoric to push for "Treason" it would be hard to "convict" as such, by the necessary guidelines for trial of such a charge. (If you want to attempt conviction, good luck... Even Ashcroft couldn't argue a case of treason on this fellow). So he's still not guilty of "Treason".

You can argue your opinion all you want in this matter... I have the fact that he has not been charged with such, more than 200 years of United States case law in which no one has been sucessfully convicted of treason outside of an official delcaration of war, by Congress, the US Code, and Constitution on my side; and if you like, I can morter more of it together with support on similarity from the Founding Fathers of this country in regards to the topic of treason in America Government.

I just don't want to put up with all the BS Generals. They are politically appointed and are not fighters. Don't start questioning my patriotism OceanDrive you'll see just how much of a patriot I am. The last time someone questioned my patriotism, wound up talking out the otherside of his mouth.



I'm praying it doesn't happen. However, I wouldn't put it past the terrorists to us big again. I'm a realist so I look for problems :D

What is the duty of the patriot?

What is the 'highest' form of patriotism?

If you don't answer these right, you have no business using the word... However, you may want to review quotes by the same person as in my signature, before answering.

What is the duty of the patriot?

To fight for one's country. However, I'm more of a politician and I don't take orders very well. I can be a patriot and do the nation's business in a government position. I would never last in the military.

What is the 'highest' form of patriotism?

To die in the service of one's country.

If you don't answer these right, you have no business using the word... However, you may want to review quotes by the same person as in my signature, before answering.

Don't have too.

The question: "What is the duty of the patriot?"

Corneliu's answer:

To fight for one's country. However, I'm more of a politician and I don't take orders very well. I can be a patriot and do the nation's business in a government position. I would never last in the military.

Answer from our Founders:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -Thomas Paine

Congradulations, you would have made a wonderful Traitor during the Revolutionary War.

The question: "What is the duty of the patriot?"

Corneliu's answer:



Answer from our Founders:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -Thomas Paine

Congradulations, you would have made a wonderful Traitor during the Revolutionary War.

Actually, no I wouldn't. You see, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. By that declaration, the nation of the United States was born. I would be in line to defend the United States from the Tyrannical Regime of King George III. Therefore, I would still be a patriot by defending the nation against those that want to harm her.

I just don't want to put up with all the BS Generals. They are politically appointed and are not fighters. Don't start questioning my patriotism OceanDrive you'll see just how much of a patriot I am. The last time someone questioned my patriotism, wound up talking out the otherside of his mouth.
Ahhh, you don't want to put your "patriotism" on the battlefield but you will bust someone in the chops to prove "how much of a patriot" you are. Interesting concept. :cool:

The question: "What is the duty of the patriot?"

Answer from our Founders:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." -Thomas Paine

Congradulations, you would have made a wonderful Traitor during the Revolutionary War.

Well in truth Thomas Paine was never actually allowed to be in the government by the founding fathers as they found him a bit extreme. He then went to France during their Revolution, and was considered a bit extreme by them.

Ahhh, you don't want to put your "patriotism" on the battlefield but you will bust someone in the chops to prove "how much of a patriot" you are. Interesting concept. :cool:
I've been on the battlefield, Canuck. I've killed people who were doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, who were taking a dump or washing their face instead of being alert.

I didn't do it for patriotism, either.

You kill, and risk your life, for your fellow soldiers FIRST. And in some cases, that's the only reason that you do it.

A patriot doesn't have to demonstrate their zeal in combat. A patriot is someone who believes in and defends the underlying ideals of a country - not in the country's government - only in its ideal form.

By defending, they could do that with words. Or protest. Or combat. Take your pick.

You can be an ordinary civilian and do that.

Corneliu, I like you already!
You seem to know how this world really is.
I especially like your UN line. I really don't know
how can a organization like that be hailed as
a great peace loving organization when it practically
rebuilt Saddam's military with the Oil for food crap!
And whats happening in Darfur? Geeze
millions of people getting slaughtered for no reason
but it is not considered genocide, while others get away
with saying that the US is doing its own genocide against
the Iraqis! And you are right, these "Freedom Fighters"
are really all foreigners who just want to get in on the action
against the US. Do you even think that they really give a rats a$$
about the everday Iraqi persons?
By the way, I saw someone mention
something about tyranny by the majority. let me clear this up.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Case in point.... the Sunnis, a minority.
Shiites, majority. Shiites oppressed by sunnis under Saddam for decades.
they still want to control the Shiites. Now the Sunni have tumbled from power and they are pissed. so they blow up everybody else that is Shiite.
This sounds more like tyrrany of the minority. That is a much bigger problem than tyranny by majority. Do you agree with me on this Corneliu? You and I think very much alike and its good to know that there are people like you out there who really know and understand the way this world really is. Especially the liberals, they think everyone is nice and we should be nice to everyone and do nothing if someone threatens you or your family. thats why the UN is impotent and in reality they suck. Thats why I like Bolton! He'll kick some a$$ in the UN and I hope he gets in!!!!

Corneliu, I like you already!
You seem to know how this world really is.
I especially like your UN line. I really don't know
how can a organization like that be hailed as
a great peace loving organization when it practically
rebuilt Saddam's military with the Oil for food crap!

Thanks, I think.

And whats happening in Darfur? Geeze
millions of people getting slaughtered for no reason
but it is not considered genocide, while others get away
with saying that the US is doing its own genocide against
the Iraqis!

Now here, yea! I agree. They have the balls to tell us that we're committing genocide but when Hussein was doing the samething, nothing. They're not even doing anything in regards to Darfur. Darfur is a human rights nightmare and they're doing nothing about it.

And you are right, these "Freedom Fighters"
are really all foreigners who just want to get in on the action
against the US. Do you even think that they really give a rats a$$
about the everday Iraqi persons?

Answer to your second question is nope. And yep, most of them are foreigners. Saudis for the most part too if what I'm hearing is correct. They are the ones responsible for the trouble taking place in Iraq.

By the way, I saw someone mention
something about tyranny by the majority. let me clear this up.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Case in point.... the Sunnis, a minority.
Shiites, majority. Shiites oppressed by sunnis under Saddam for decades.
they still want to control the Shiites. Now the Sunni have tumbled from power and they are pissed. so they blow up everybody else that is Shiite.
This sounds more like tyrrany of the minority. That is a much bigger problem than tyranny by majority. Do you agree with me on this Corneliu?

For the most part, yes I do agree with you. However, the Sunnis are starting to realize that they better start getting with the program otherwise they'll be left behind. It is starting to heal the rifts some but I think it'll take awhile for that to occur.

You and I think very much alike and its good to know that there are people like you out there who really know and understand the way this world really is. Especially the liberals, they think everyone is nice and we should be nice to everyone and do nothing if someone threatens you or your family. thats why the UN is impotent and in reality they suck. Thats why I like Bolton! He'll kick some a$$ in the UN and I hope he gets in!!!!

I like Bolton too. We need someone with his attitude in the UN. As for understanding the world around me, I blame that on my mother who taught me never look at what is printed but what isn't being printed. Don't believe everything you hear on TV either. Always dig for the answers. That is the only way to get to most of the truth is if you research. Not to mention, studying history and politics also comes in handy.

They have the balls to tell us that we're committing genocide but when Hussein was doing the samething, nothing.
Of course there was nothing wrong with the US supplying Hussein with chemical and biological weapons, supplying military intel while using gases against the Iranians, and supporting him through an exchange of ambassadors, right up until the Gulf War?

Answer to your second question is nope. And yep, most of them are foreigners. Saudis for the most part too if what I'm hearing is correct. They are the ones responsible for the trouble taking place in Iraq.
Actually, most of the "freedom fighters" are Iraqis.

For the most part, yes I do agree with you. However, the Sunnis are starting to realize that they better start getting with the program otherwise they'll be left behind. It is starting to heal the rifts some but I think it'll take awhile for that to occur.
Being true patriots, these "freedom fighters" will persist until the US coalition leaves Iraq?

Of course there was nothing wrong with the US supplying Hussein with chemical and biological weapons, supplying military intel while using gases against the Iranians, and supporting him through an exchange of ambassadors, right up until the Gulf War?

Russia, Britain, France, China, and other nations have done the samething. Why are you signaling out the US in this regard?

Actually, most of the "freedom fighters" are Iraqis.

Hmmm, no actually they're not!

Being true patriots, these "freedom fighters" will persist until the US coalition leaves Iraq?

Then they'll have to put up with the Iraqi National Guard and Police. Doesn't matter anyway. The terrorists are losing in Iraq.

Russia, Britain, France, China, and other nations have done the samething. Why are you signaling out the US in this regard?
You don't remember your own words, that I replied to?

"They have the balls to tell us that we're committing genocide but when Hussein was doing the samething, nothing."

Hmmm, no actually they're not!
You can't prove that and you know it.

Then they'll have to put up with the Iraqi National Guard and Police. Doesn't matter anyway. The terrorists are losing in Iraq.
It appears that you are back to calling them all "terrorists" again? And it appears that the news (http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/05/the_dead_and_th.html) is not all rosey as you would love to have everyone believe?

You don't remember your own words, that I replied to?

I remember my words just fine but you constently single out the United States when things go wrong

You can't prove that and you know it.

All you have to do is read a paper and listen to the people that ARE IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It appears that you are back to calling them all "terrorists" again? And it appears that the news (http://www.occupationwatch.org/analysis/archives/2005/05/the_dead_and_th.html) is not all rosey as you would love to have everyone believe?

The news isn't as nasty as you want everyone to believe either.

I remember my words just fine but you constently single out the United States when things go wrong
It was you who mentioned the US, not me, and the US did play a large part in aiding Hussein in commiting atrocities.

All you have to do is read a paper and listen to the people that ARE IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have consistently read that the vast majority of the insurgents are Sunni Arabs who are augmented by terrorist forces from outside Iraq. If you have something that would prove otherwise, please provide the proof.

The news isn't as nasty as you want everyone to believe either.
Well then, how about just a little honesty, when describing what is going on in Iraq? This war is a long way from over.

It was you who mentioned the US, not me, and the US did play a large part in aiding Hussein in commiting atrocities.

And the UN did nothing to clean up or stop for that matter.

I have consistently read that the vast majority of the insurgents are Sunni Arabs who are augmented by terrorist forces from outside Iraq. If you have something that would prove otherwise, please provide the proof.

Ok, here's where logic fails. Sunni isn't just in Iraq CH. Sunni muslims are all over the place. Just because they are sunni DOES NOT MAKE THEM IRAQI!!!!! I'm surprised that you didn't figure that out since what I've been reading is that Sunni is the MINORITY in Iraq. Also, Sunnis are outside the country coming into the country to try to kick us out of the country. Your right that they are mostly sunni but you are wrong that they are Iraqi.

Well then, how about just a little honesty, when describing what is going on in Iraq? This war is a long way from over.

The war has been over Since APril 9, 2003. What we have here is reconstruction. There is a big difference between the two. BTW: DId you know that there was an insurgency by German and Japanese against allied forces? shouldn't we include that then in how long WWII lasted?

Yeah... this war is a LONG ways from being over. Now the U.S. is considering to attack Iran.

And you got a 96 on that test?

Hrmmm...something isn't right here. Anyone dumb enough to join the military does not score that high.

Not cool man, not cool.

Not cool man, not cool.
Yeah I know some people who are really smart and are in the military.

There's already post on military recruiting, but the main purpose of this thread is to share my horrible experiences with the U.S. military. Posting this in the other thread would be rather off-topic.

I just got off the phone with the Navy. I'd originally decided to join, but I've decided to move to Britain and join the Royal Navy instead, for political, economic, and social reasons, and so, I can't stay with the Navy. Legally, according to the Center on Conscience and War (a non-profit organization out of D.C. I'd contacted), I'm not held accountable until bootcamp. So, they've been stalking me for weeks now, trying to fool me into just going to bootcamp. (In some cases, they've told guys that if they're quitting, they at least just need to go to bootcamp and "tell them" they're quitting. But once you're there, you're scewed). About a week and a half ago, my recruiter left a message on my answering machine, telling me repeatedly to "be a man." Today, someone called. I picked up the phone and they asked for William. I asked who it was and what they wanted. The guy, who I didn't know, said it was the Navy.

He asked me, "What's up?"

I kept trying to tell him I had to go, but he kept telling me to wait and hold on.

So, finally, I told him, "Look. I got a 96 on the ASVAB, and I'm a psychology major. So, any mind games you're planning, it's not going to work."

And he replied, "What? What mind games? What's with the hostility?" Then I heard him mutter, "It's William Young!", and I heard a few people in the background muttering, with my recruiter saying, "Let me see it!"

He grabbed the phone and I immediately told him I'd made my decision, and I wasn't obligated to explain anything to him, and that I knew the law. Because I knew that, whatever my given reason was, he was going to try to debate over it. That's not what I wanted. And he said, "No, no, it's okay. Don't worry, man. We already discharged you. We put you down for being gay."

I had to laugh, and said, "Hahaha. You think I'm a..."

Well, you get the idea. Not only did he lie to me about the 'discharge' part (I was never even in to begin with), but I'm highly skeptical that he can just make up bullshit that I'm gay.

I was originally going to join the U.S. Army. But after I'd asked the army recruiter for specific statistics about soldiers deployed to Iraq, not only did he attack my patriotism and call me a coward, but he insulted my mother as well, who served the Navy for 30 years and now has Parkinson's disease.

I met the army recruiter while at Wal-Mart, and he gave me his card. I ended up going to his office, and walked in, telling him my mother, who was also in the Navy, was waiting in the car. And then I told him that the number one thing on my mind was my chance of going to Iraq, and that I wanted specific, verifiable statistics of their deployment. He replied, "Well, I can't really give you that information. But frankly, I don't really need you. I get plenty of patriotic, young men and women that come in here, to do their duty for their country, and defend their freedom. Personally, from what you've said, I don't think you'd be appropriate for any branch of the military service. I just don't know why your mother isn't in here--if she's afraid to discuss these issues."

I told him, "My mother has Parkinson's, and she's in the car, resting."

He said, "Oh, oh, sorry."

I wanted to curse at him, but I didn't want to make a scene or get thrown out. I told him I was interested in joining the Navy instead, and that's when I first met my Navy recruiter, who walked in and also happens to be the son of one of my mother's old friends. Later, me and the army recruiter argued a few times. I tried to explain to him that the Army and Navy have the same benefits, and that if I get the same benefits in each, but have a greater chance of dying in one, then I obviously wouldn't choose the most dangerous option. Because my goal, like most people who join the military, is not "duty" or "patriotism", but college money. The benefits are why they join. If there were no benefits that recruiters didn't constantly shove down your throat, then no one would join. Once, I walked by, and the army recruiter mockingly asked me to come in and explain to their office why I joined the Navy instead of the Army (he'd repeatedly called me a coward, before that, and was trying to ridicule me). It was rather rude of me to say this, but I said, "It's better to live for your country than die for it", and walked out.

Once, the army recruiter was talking about there are different "spectrums" in the military, while I told him they all rely on eachother, that none is more important than another, even if they're more dangerous.

My experience with the Navy recruiters was not much better. I'd originally been told that I'd recieve "cash assistance." Because I'd gotten a 96 on the ASVAB, I could apply to almost any field in the Navy, including the advanced paygrade fields (starting out, from a slightly higher rank). In fact, the only field I wouldn't have been able to start in, according to my ASVAB, was nuclear. Even then, they were going to give me a trigonometry test that would've allowed me to do that, but when they saw my math grades, they changed their minds. If I'd demanded the test and passed it (which I'm sure I could have), I still probably would've been able to make it in the Nuclear field. So, settling for AECF (Advanced Electronics and Computers Field) in DEP (Delayed-Entry Program), which are both just recruiting programs. DEP just means you don't immediately leave for bootcamp, because you're in college or have some kind of obligation. AECF is just a general field they put you in, where it's not an actual job, or even an actual "rate", but a general field they put you in, based upon your rank and ability after leaving bootcamp. Because Nuclear, AECF, and SECF are the top fields for starting out at (for enlisted), they all guarantee long training schools though, and they pay fairly well.

Well, because of this, they also were supposed to have me in what's called the "cash assistance" program, where I'd be recieving college money, though I hadn't even gone to bootcamp yet. My recruiter originally told me it'd be put in right after signing the contract, in Washington D.C.. Well, when I got to the office, where they do a check-up and you sign the contract, what also bothered me is how I was rushed. (I almost wonder if this was planned). Because when I'd been given the contract, the recruiter said that they were going to stop swearing people in, soon, and to just read the contract quickly and sign it. I told him, repeatedly, that I wanted to read all of it, and he just kept telling me to hurry up, and come on. Well, I read it, although rather quickly, then signed it and was unofficially sworn in (the "official" swearing in happens after bootcamp, so it means nothing--just a tactic to trick veterans with kids, into telling their children that they're held liable, since they were sworn in). Well, the fact that they'd rush me through such a life-changing document also offends me.

After I signed the contract, my recruiter's demeanor totally changed, though I hadn't noticed it until weeks later. Whereas, before, they're totally attentive and treat you like a God, after signing the contract, you're "just like everyone else." He also told me that they'd have to put me in for the cash assistance, and later said that I might not be approved. Weeks and months went by, my mother's in terrible debt, and I'm focusing on school, to where I wouldn't be able to hold a job, as well as having my cat die and girlfriend leave me, which contributed to me really just not wanting to work.

So, it was a rough time. We asked the recruiter, every week, if the money was coming. He kept saying yes. For months, he said yes. But he just said that I was approved, but they just needed the budget to come through. One chief said it would be put through by about February (I signed the contract in about August, where they said it'd be put through a few weeks, remember). February came around, and they were still "waiting." Finally, my mother, a friend of her's, and I, all called the recruiting office. A chief, whose name we don't know, claimed that the budget was put through and that I'd be recieving money in a few weeks. That was a lie. A couple of weeks later, I asked my recruiter. He said that he didn't know what I was talking about, asked me who the chief was, and then said that the whole program had been cancelled. What I find disturbing of all, though, is that only a week or two prior to that, I remember hearing him talking to the group, and saying to one recruit, "Oh. And you're recieving full pay now!"

I'd considered calling other recruiting offices, and asking about cash assistance (pretending to be interested in joining the military), to see if he was lying. But I never got around to it. I'm fairly certain he was lying to me, though, the entire time, of whether I was eligible, whether he put me through, about the budget, or at least about it being "cancelled." Because then I'd have a legal case against the Navy, for outright lying to me, with three witnesses, me, my mother, and her friend, all claiming the same. The fact that my mother is a Navy veteran adds to her credibility.

The last straw came, really, when one chief I knew there told me that there was going to be a field trip to a Navy ship, where they'd take us aboard and give us a tour. That was rather exciting, I thought. But the next week, I asked him, and he said that the spots had all filled up, but that he was planning his own tour, on a much smaller trip. I asked him when I should call him, and he said, "No. I'll call you." He never called.

I'd really like to tell my Navy recruiter these reasons for why I've left, with them lying to me, repeatedly, and running such a half-assed operation, but I don't want to give them the satisfaction and I'm sure that they'd just insult me further, and possibly even hang up on me (to encourage me to come down there, like a fish on a hook).

But how I've been treated by military recruiters in America is a large part of what has contributed to my anti-Americanism. Now, I know that term angers a lot of people, but from what you've seen of my situation, isn't it reasonable?! I mean, how despicable can you be? To lie to young kids, so that they can be killed in a war they don't expect, insulting my mother, a disabled Navy veteran, constantly leading me on about this imaginary money I'll recieve, and then calling me gay when I'm fed up with it?

Plenty of soldiers deserve to be spat upon. I could write pages, as to how the U.S. military uses the same psychological tactics that terrorists and cults use, to gain membership and enforce discipline, such as peer-pressure, outright lies, sleep\food deprivation, chanting, appeal to patriotism, appeal to religion, appeal to pride, appeal to masculinity, appeal to emotion, and personal attacks. But, from what I've explained here, it should seem rather obvious.

A friend of mine is joining the army now. He told me that his recruiter is extremely nice to him and has taken him out to eat, several times (my friend hasn't signed the contract yet). I told my friend he's going to go to Iraq, and he said that he wasn't, because he got a 60-something on the ASVAB, repeating verbatim some nonsense explanation the recruiter gave him (something about how he was in a certain "bracket"), and that even though he got a 60-something on the ASVAB, that he wasn't going to Iraq, and was going to work in intelligence. After I explained the bullshit to him, he still seemed rather "starry-eyed", but then also said he didn't care if he had to go to Iraq or not. I don't really have the heart to tell my friend that he's stupid. On one hand, I think he'll be okay and deal with Iraq fine and there's probably nothing I can say to change his mind, but on the other hand, what am I going to do? Tell him that he got an incredibly shitty score, that he'll end up being an MP or in infantry, only to have his recruiter cleverly prove me wrong? No. While war and national defense are necessary, the U.S. military's unethical recruiting practices are not. The way it works is, "tell recruits anything they want to hear to get them to join, without getting the military sued", and the recruits that are tricked by recruiters, into thinking they aren't going to war or that they'll have a great job, are labeled disloyal cowards. The truth is, these guys are doing the same thing that people escaping cults and terrorist groups are doing. They were lied to, and when they found out the truth, they wanted to get out. The difference between cults and the military (whether it's a terrorist military or the U.S.) is that the military puts you in prison for leaving.

How can they decieve you into signing a contract, then jail you, when you realize you were lied to? It's outright evil. Currently, recruiters aren't supposed to tell lies, but stretching the truth, hiding the truth, and "little white lies" are okay, because they can get away with them, legally.


I think you've just had a bad experience.

While SOME military recruiters are scum, I think you just ran into a very bad bunch.

There's already post on military recruiting, but the main purpose of this thread is to share my horrible experiences with the U.S. military. Posting this in the other thread would be rather off-topic.

[ Mucho snippage ]

Plenty of soldiers deserve to be spat upon.

[ Even more snippage ]

The way it works is, "tell recruits anything they want to hear to get them to join, without getting the military sued", and the recruits that are tricked by recruiters, into thinking they aren't going to war or that they'll have a great job, are labeled disloyal cowards. The truth is, these guys are doing the same thing that people escaping cults and terrorist groups are doing.
If you're telling the truth, report them.

One thing I might suggest to you for reference later on when you're seeking a job, is that you not give too much information to the interviewer or share your thought-processes with them. You gave out way too much information, IMHO.

Oh ... thanks for the snide and highly inappropriate snipe at soldiers. The spitting thing? Personally, I'm overjoyed that you didn't get in!

And the UN did nothing to clean up or stop for that matter.
Actually, that is not true: (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html)
"On 30 March, the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War. Evidently none of the five permanent member used its veto power to block the condemnation. That same day the US government announced that it was instituting special licensing requirements for exports to Iraq and Iran of particular chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that it had urged other governments to do likewise. Other governments have since taken similar steps."

Ok, here's where logic fails. Sunni isn't just in Iraq CH. Sunni muslims are all over the place. Just because they are sunni DOES NOT MAKE THEM IRAQI!!!!! I'm surprised that you didn't figure that out since what I've been reading is that Sunni is the MINORITY in Iraq. Also, Sunnis are outside the country coming into the country to try to kick us out of the country. Your right that they are mostly sunni but you are wrong that they are Iraqi.
Oh no, my logic has failed me again? I know that there are Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East, however, it is mostly Iraqi Sunnis who comprise the majority of the insurgents in Iraq. Prove that I am "wrong".

The war has been over Since APril 9, 2003. What we have here is reconstruction.
I have noticed. Nice redecorating in Fallujah!! :eek:

Because George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", doesn't mean that the war is over. May 18, 2005, and the war is still ongoing, or haven't you noticed?

And you got a 96 on that test?

Hrmmm...something isn't right here. Anyone dumb enough to join the military does not score that high.
This has to be a joke, yes?

This has to be a joke, yes?

Probably not. Just another comment by someone w/o a clue.

BTW. I got a 98 and just re-upped in December.

Oh yeah, the college money. Um... Good luck with that. You may get the GI Bill when you get out, if all of your paperwork is in order. Then you will have to actually start school and go through the process of dealing with your school, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to try to get your money started, once it has been started, granted, it helps, but you're already so far behind because the application and processing took so damn long that you were spending money you didn't have.

Oh yea, it's real hard. One or two forms every semester to recieve thousands of dollars. My check was never late. Only once was it delayed starting. They even gave me an extension of benefits because it ran out mid-semester.

Your experience with recruiting is not the same as everybody elses.

It made him a traitor when he didn't toss down his weapon when we DID ATTACK the Taliban. Because he fought alongside the Taliban, the bastard deserves to be executed.Oh really? If I join the Canadian Army tomorrow and 3 days later my unit is attacked by American soldiers under order of the President, would I be commiting treason if I failed to throw down my weapon? Not only that, but you really don't know what Johnny Taliban actually did when
A.) he first learned that US forces were attacking the Taliban and
B.) he saw US forces with his own eyes.
I don't know that even knew what was going on at all. But even if he did, what would you expect him to do? Turn around and say, "Hey guys! It looks like we're enemies now. I guess I'll be leaving!"? I can't blame a guy for trying to survive a situation, and I have never heard that he ever fired on American forces.

As for your "I advise people to stay out of the military comment" I find this absolutely reprehensible. Especially from the mouth of a former soldier. I respect your service but don't tell people what to do.Why do you find my comment so reprehensible, and why does it matter that I'm a former soldier? It is my opinion that the benefits of joining the military are not worth the risks. Am I allowed to have and share that opinion? Hell, as free man, I could even "tell people what to do", which I haven't.

It is a great opportunity for people to actually open their eyes to how the real world works through their own eyes. I thought about joining myself. I'm still thinking about it too. And I just might if another major terror attack happens on this country.The military isn't exactly what I'd call "the real world", but think whatever you want. Go ahead and join, if they'll take you. Maybe if a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia launch a successful attack against US domestic targets, President Bush (or whoever's next) will launch another illegal war against a totally unrelated country. In such a case, it may be a good idea to sign up before you're forced to. You don't sound like the type that would resist a draft.

BTW: Army Sucks! Go Air Force! :p
Yes, if you wish to survive your military service, your odds a definately better in the Chair Force. Plus, instead of working harder, you'll get to "work smarter".

Had, and would the United States Government operate properly in its foundational boundries, and under its proper authority; this case may be different. However, as a person, who served in the United States Armed Forces, and swore an oath towards the Constitution, I cannot grant or support governmental acts which stands against their proper enumerated authority, or support the trial of Mr. Walker for treason, resultant from an undeclared military action outside of their properly enumerated powers.Well said.

Actually, that is not true: (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html)
"On 30 March, the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War. Evidently none of the five permanent member used its veto power to block the condemnation. That same day the US government announced that it was instituting special licensing requirements for exports to Iraq and Iran of particular chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that it had urged other governments to do likewise. Other governments have since taken similar steps."

You have a problem CH! Chemical weapons WERE NOT used in the 1st Gulf War. Care to point to the chemical WEapons incident. I will garuntee you that if CW were used, Baghdad would've been a smoking crater and not a standing capitol city that it is today.


Oh no, my logic has failed me again? I know that there are Sunni Arabs throughout the Middle East, however, it is mostly Iraqi Sunnis who comprise the majority of the insurgents in Iraq. Prove that I am "wrong".

OMG! You really are out of touch. Here's a hint. READ THE NEWSPAPER! You obviously don't care about facts so I'm not even going to bother. ITs been stated all throughout the press that the majority are NOT Iraqi but foriegn fighters. ALot of them made up of Saudi citizens. That just recently came out in case you didn't hear about it. Frankly CH, your lack of intelligence is now starting to grate on me.

I have noticed. Nice redecorating in Fallujah!! :eek:

*Sighs* Insurgency stronghold eliminated. It was the stronghold of AL QAEDA TERRORIST and INSURGENCY LEADER Zaraqawi. It was part of the insurgency fight. NOT PART of the actual war. In case you haven't noticed, this is an insurgency and not a full scale war.

Because George Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", doesn't mean that the war is over. May 18, 2005, and the war is still ongoing, or haven't you noticed?

You really are stupid aren't you? Yes I can see that you are. The mission then was to OUST SADDAM FROM POWER!!!!! That was the first mission. That was accomplished CanuckHeaven. You really need to get new material.

Oh really? If I join the Canadian Army tomorrow and 3 days later my unit is attacked by American soldiers under order of the President, would I be commiting treason if I failed to throw down my weapon? Not only that, but you really don't know what Johnny Taliban actually did when

What? If your in the Canadian Army and we attacked you, you better damn well fight the American Soldiers. That had to be the most redicouls thing I've heard so far today and its only 1132 AM

A.) he first learned that US forces were attacking the Taliban and
B.) he saw US forces with his own eyes.
I don't know that even knew what was going on at all. But even if he did, what would you expect him to do? Turn around and say, "Hey guys! It looks like we're enemies now. I guess I'll be leaving!"? I can't blame a guy for trying to survive a situation, and I have never heard that he ever fired on American forces.

Oh I'm sure he did otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the said plea bargain that sent him to the slammer for 20 years.

Why do you find my comment so reprehensible, and why does it matter that I'm a former soldier? It is my opinion that the benefits of joining the military are not worth the risks. Am I allowed to have and share that opinion? Hell, as free man, I could even "tell people what to do", which I haven't.

Who said anything that you are a former soldier? I'm glad you served in your country's military. I think everyone should serve a stint in their nation's armed forces. But that is just my humble opinion. BTW: I'm a son of a military officer.

The military isn't exactly what I'd call "the real world", but think whatever you want. Go ahead and join, if they'll take you. Maybe if a bunch of guys from Saudi Arabia launch a successful attack against US domestic targets, President Bush (or whoever's next) will launch another illegal war against a totally unrelated country. In such a case, it may be a good idea to sign up before you're forced to. You don't sound like the type that would resist a draft.

The military is part of the real world in that it exposes you to how things operate. I've ran into clueless individuals and so far, most of the bright ones that I've ran across were either currently in our just got out of, the military. Now, can you point me to an illegal war please because so far, no one has yet been able to answer that question.

Yes, if you wish to survive your military service, your odds a definately better in the Chair Force. Plus, instead of working harder, you'll get to "work smarter".

*yawns* I love interservice rivalry dont you?

Probably not. Just another comment by someone w/o a clue.

BTW. I got a 98 and just re-upped in December.
Kewl! Go for it, bro! :)

Come join us oooooooooooooooooooo we need you! :eek:

You have a problem CH! Chemical weapons WERE NOT used in the 1st Gulf War. Care to point to the chemical WEapons incident. I will garuntee you that if CW were used, Baghdad would've been a smoking crater and not a standing capitol city that it is today.
If anyone has a problem that would be you, and you appear to have many. Firstly, I linked an article (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html) to my quote and you didn't even bother to look at the link. I put it back in so that you can try again.

Secondly, you are always asking for proof, and when it is presented, you either disregard it, don't read it ALL, or just make stuff up. Actually, I think the latter is the most likely scenario for you.

OMG! You really are out of touch. Here's a hint. READ THE NEWSPAPER! You obviously don't care about facts so I'm not even going to bother. ITs been stated all throughout the press that the majority are NOT Iraqi but foriegn fighters. ALot of them made up of Saudi citizens. That just recently came out in case you didn't hear about it. Frankly CH, your lack of intelligence is now starting to grate on me.
Your verbal attacks are customary. It is what you do, when you cannot support your statements. Zeppistan owned you most of the time, because you fail to back up your claims with anything remotely close to the truth.

Once again, I invite you to prove your statement. Too bad, so sad, but you can't, because it is not true.

*Sighs* Insurgency stronghold eliminated. It was the stronghold of AL QAEDA TERRORIST and INSURGENCY LEADER Zaraqawi. It was part of the insurgency fight. NOT PART of the actual war. In case you haven't noticed, this is an insurgency and not a full scale war.
Not part of the war? Tell that to the families of the US servicemen who lost their lives there. I think they might put you on the right path. At any rate, nice reconstruction job. BTW, the name of the Operation was "Phantom Fury", and it only included about 10,000 to 15,000 troops.

You really are stupid aren't you? Yes I can see that you are. The mission then was to OUST SADDAM FROM POWER!!!!! That was the first mission. That was accomplished CanuckHeaven. You really need to get new material.
Ahhh more ad hominen attacks. BTW, when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", Saddam was still at large, so the "first mission" as you claim, was still NOT accomplished.

The next time you post, you really should not look at the "facts" as being such an insurmountable barrier, to YOUR truth. Oh.....you already do that.

If anyone has a problem that would be you, and you appear to have many. Firstly, I linked an article (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html) to my quote and you didn't even bother to look at the link. I put it back in so that you can try again.


From the source you linked to:

"With the exceptions, maybe, of the last two of these different categories of putative Iraqi agent, sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier, for the reason that the USSR is said, on evidence that has yet to be solidly substantiated but which has nonetheless attracted some firm believers, to have weaponized all three of them in recent years. For its part, the USSR has expressly denied supplying Iraq with toxic weapons. Reports of Soviet supply attributed to US and other intelligence sources have nonetheless recurred. The earliest predate reports of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War. "

The document you linked to is dated 1984, some years BEFORE what Americans refer to as the Gulf War.

There were no uses of chemical weapons in what the US calls the Gulf War (the liberation of Kuwait by UN authorized forces).

Indeed, we may draw the conclusion from your own source that the US is not the source of the chemical weapons used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War - rather that the USSR or some other country might be.

There's even more in your document that says that the mustard gas found is not of the kind produced by the US - it was produced by a method not used by the US.

And proof that no chemical weapons were used in the KTO during the 1991 Gulf War:

see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/non-use.htm

"Gulf War Non-Use of Chemical Weapons

At the time of the Gulf War, the Iraqis possess many chemical delivery systems, including aircraft sprayers, bombs and missiles, multiple rocket launchers, and artillery (from 122mm and larger). However, no chemical weapons were used in the KTO and no chemical rounds were found in captured munitions stockpiles.

There are several possible explanations for this, the most likely being Baghdad's fear of US and multinational Coalition forces retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. Interrogations of senior Iraqi officers revealed they were unanimous in their assertion that there was no intent to employ chemicals, and that there were no chemical munitions issued to their divisions. Most believed that Saddam Hussein recognized that President Bush would react in a manner unacceptable to Iraq if it employed chemicals.

None of the commanders expressed any misgivings about their inability to employ chemicals; most regarded them as a bigger threat to their own poorly equipped Iraqi soldiers. The Iraqi commanders' fear for their own poorly equipped troops was well founded. Many Iraqi soldiers only had masks, but no protective overgarments and there were complaints about the poor condition of decontamination kits. Many mask filters hadn't been changed in years and several units reported that their vehicles' chemical filtration systems were broken.


The Iraqis believed that they would have days or even weeks to move chemical weapons into the KTO once the war began. Thus, the Iraqis miscalculated the Coalition speed of advance; the degree to which their Air Force, artillery assets, and surface-to-surface missile systems would be attrited; and the degree to which their resupply capability would be degraded. The Coalition air campaign dominated Iraq's preferred means of chemical delivery (its Air Force) and made timely ammunition supply impossible. The air campaign also destroyed all known and suspected CW storage in Iraq.

In addition, Coalition bombing heavily damaged Iraq's command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I) system. Iraqi commanders could not control their forces, in part because of an intelligence system failure ot evaluate the developing situation. Allied air superiority established at the start of the air campaign denied Iraq informaiton on Coalition force dispositons, making fire planning practically impossible. The limited information available may have resulted in a decision not to disperse chemicals within the theater until the ground battle became better defined.

Destruction of Iraqi chemical weapon production facilities quite likely swayed the decision not to use chemicals. Chemical agents Iraq had produced earlier might have deteriorated in storage, or Iraq might have miscalculated that its defenses would allow it time to produce and deploy chemicals later in the conflict. Loss of its production facilities would have prevented Iraq from making agents as needed, which was the practice during the Iran-Iraq war.

Saddam Hussein probably retained personal control of CW during DESERT STORM to allow more complete military evaluations. In such a case, the speed of the Coalition ground offensive together with C3I problems would have complicated and slowed chemical release further. "

Thank you Whispering Legs, for setting the record straight.

Canuck, I suggest that in the future, you read the publication dates on your sources.

1984 is a long time before 1991. The term "Gulf War" took on a completely different meaning after 1991.

Canuck, I suggest that in the future, you read the publication dates on your sources.

1984 is a long time before 1991. The term "Gulf War" took on a completely different meaning after 1991.

HAHA!!

I knew I wasn't going insane. LOL

The document you linked to is dated 1984, some years BEFORE what Americans refer to as the Gulf War.
I do realize that, and you did look at the link, so you are qualified in your comment. Corneliu, on the other hand, commented without looking at the link, therefore he was not qualified in his comment to me. If he had bothered to read it, then he would have realized that the "Gulf War" in that article was about the Iran/Iraq War.

There were no uses of chemical weapons in what the US calls the Gulf War (the liberation of Kuwait by UN authorized forces).
Again, I fully understand that fact, and if anything, the fact that Saddam ordered his troops NOT to use chemicals against the US forces speaks volumes about fraudulent US claims that Iraq was a somehow a "threat" to the US in 2002.

Indeed, we may draw the conclusion from your own source that the US is not the source of the chemical weapons used by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War - rather that the USSR or some other country might be.
Indeed you may draw any conclusion that you wish, but it doesn't negate the fact that the US did indeed supply Iraq with chemical and biological agents. Nor does it negate the fact that the US continued to support Iraq, even though the US knew that Saddam's troops were using chemical agents against Iran. Nor does it eliminate the fact that the US supplied intel to Saddam's troops during those encounters against Iran.

I do realize that, and you did look at the link, so you are qualified in your comment. Corneliu, on the other hand, commented without looking at the link, therefore he was not qualified in his comment to me. If he had bothered to read it, then he would have realized that the "Gulf War" in that article was about the Iran/Iraq War.

I love the unwarrented assumption that I didn't read the link. SOrry, I only got to 1984 and stopped.

Again, I fully understand that fact, and if anything, the fact that Saddam ordered his troops NOT to use chemicals against the US forces speaks volumes about fraudulent US claims that Iraq was a somehow a "threat" to the US in 2002.

How does it speak volumns about fraudulent US Claims? Sorry, not seeing a connection there.

Canuck, I suggest that in the future, you read the publication dates on your sources.

1984 is a long time before 1991. The term "Gulf War" took on a completely different meaning after 1991.
I would suggest if you want to comment, then you should at least trace the source of the dialogue between Corneliu and myself. We were not discussing the Gulf War. If you go back and read the conversation you might understand?

If Corneliu cannot bother to read the linked document, that would be his problem, not yours?

Indeed you may draw any conclusion that you wish, but it doesn't negate the fact that the US did indeed supply Iraq with chemical and biological agents.

Your link doesn't support that at all. In fact, it contradicts it several times.

Nor does it negate the fact that the US continued to support Iraq, even though the US knew that Saddam's troops were using chemical agents against Iran.

True enough. And we went back to get rid of him, didn't we?

Nor does it eliminate the fact that the US supplied intel to Saddam's troops during those encounters against Iran.
True enough.

So you're saying that because we supported him, we should never have gotten rid of him? You're saying that he's a monster who used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War, but we shouldn't accept our hand (not the sole hand) in creating this monster and get rid of him?

Shouldn't the Russians have helped us get rid of him? It looks like they had a hand in providing him the chemical weapons, by your source. They also supplied most of his conventional weapons.

The rest of his conventional military weapons came from France and South Africa. Did we see them owning up to making Saddam the most powerful man in the region?

Or are you going to blame it all on the US - and absolve every other country involved - and at the same time castigate the US for trying to go back and straighten out the whole mess.

WL,

He's been placing his strength soley on the US now since I've known him. He has never listened to a reasonable arguement regarding other nations supplying him no matter how much evidence you show him.

I love the unwarrented assumption that I didn't read the link. SOrry, I only got to 1984 and stopped.
Therein lies your problem. You jumped in and made comment and you didn't even know what the article said. Par for the course.

How does it speak volumns about fraudulent US Claims? Sorry, not seeing a connection there.
Saddam refused to use chemicals against US troops during the Gulf War because he didn't want to incur the threat of nuclear annihilation. That suggests that Saddam was not as stupid as everyone thinks? Somehow Saddam was a threat to the US in 2002?

Therein lies your problem. You jumped in and made comment and you didn't even know what the article said. Par for the course.

For a person my age, I know alot about the 1st Gulf War. Why? My father was over there in the 1st Gulf war. Sorry for having the eyewitness as well as other accounts of that first war between the UN and Iraq.

Saddam refused to use chemicals against US troops during the Gulf War because he didn't want to incur the threat of nuclear annihilation. That suggests that Saddam was not as stupid as everyone thinks? Somehow Saddam was a threat to the US in 2002?

No one thought Saddam Hussein was stupid. I know he wasn't stupid. The only stupid thing he did was underestimate the United States and what we would do.

Canuck, according to UNMOVIC reports - I'm using those as sources - not the US and UK reports that said the same thing -

1800 gallons of anthrax was missing.

And you're going to say that anthrax in a post-911 world is not a threat. To anyone.

For a leader who does have ties with Palestinian terrorists (if not al-Qaeda).

The only person in the world who knew for sure that the anthrax had been destroyed in 1993 was Taha, the woman who ran the Iraqi bioweapons program.

The UN didn't know that.
The US didn't know that.
Saddam didn't know that.

Only she knew that - and knew if Saddam found out she would be dead.

Since Saddam wouldn't allow ANYONE to look for the anthrax, we weren't left with much of a choice.

And after we invaded - and after we found Taha - she told us where the anthrax was - and we confirmed that it had been dumped into a trench outside one of Saddam's palaces.

Good. It was never really a threat. But we had NO WAY of knowing that. And given that even a kilogram of anthrax is enough to kill millions of people, one wonders if any of those 1800 gallons ever went missing in the two years it was known to exist.

After all, we have the unresolved anthrax letter campaign in the US, don't we? We may never know.

But considering the anthrax attacks here, and 9-11, what US government would wait and sit on the idea of 1800 gallons of missing anthrax - a figure confirmed and validated by Hans Blix himself.

WL,

He's been placing his strength soley on the US now since I've known him. He has never listened to a reasonable arguement regarding other nations supplying him no matter how much evidence you show him.
Well it appears that WL has conveniently sidetracked the discussion enough to help you evade being accountable for your earlier comments.

You made claims that you cannot back up, and even you want to change the subject because you don't want to be accountable for the claims you made.

Well it appears that WL has conveniently sidetracked the discussion enough to help you evade being accountable for your earlier comments.

You made claims that you cannot back up, and even you want to change the subject because you don't want to be accountable for the claims you made.

What comments were those? Oh about non-chemical weapons use in the 1st Gulf War? Yep I knew I was right there! Anything Else I sidestepped on?

I think we're at:

1. There was no use of chemical weapons in the KTO during the 1991 Gulf War, by any side.

2. Saddam possessed and used chemicals weapons of several varieties during the Iran-Iraq War. By Canuck's source, none of these came from the United States.

3. Saddam, according to UNMOVIC (we'll leave out US sources, since Canuck thinks they're automatically and always invalid), 1800 gallons of anthrax was unaccounted for after the 1991 Gulf War.

4. It was not possible to discover what happened to the missing anthrax until the country was occupied. Because Taha feared death at Saddam's hands, she was never to reveal that she destroyed the anthrax in 1993 - until the Americans came and she could tell of the anthrax without fear of death.

and

5. Canuck thinks it's perfectly OK for a man he believes wantonly used chemical weapons to possess 1800 gallons of anthrax without accounting for it, because Saddam is an OK guy. Canuck believes that the US should never wake up and realize that the bad guys they helped in the past should be put out of power.

I do believe that is where we are at as well WL.

I do believe that is where we are at as well WL.
Well you can try to wriggle of the hook, but here is where your BS starts and I would say ends but you appear to want to change the subject because you cannot or will not support your BS:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8904648&postcount=263

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905058&postcount=264

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905085&postcount=265

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905265&postcount=266

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905295&postcount=267

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905493&postcount=268

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905587&postcount=269

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8905723&postcount=275

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8908464&postcount=282

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8909510&postcount=286

Where were we? Your lack of accountability/credibility.

Just like you don't know the difference between a war and an insurgency. Again, did you know that we had an insurgency after WWII in BOTH Germany and in Japan? Did we call that is part of WWII? No we didn't! If we did then the years would've been longer and they are not. This insurgency isn't part of the actual Iraq war that ended on April 9, 2003 when Baghdad fell. Or if you prefer, when Bush declared MAJOR COMBAT operations over in Iraq and declared the mission to oust saddam, accomplished. This is a different phase we are in now. We had the actual war, now we have to deal with the after affects. That being an insurgency. Incase you don't know what an insurgency is:

Insurgency (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/insurgency)

Noun
1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.

Just like you don't know the difference between a war and an insurgency. Again, did you know that we had an insurgency after WWII in BOTH Germany and in Japan? Did we call that is part of WWII? No we didn't! If we did then the years would've been longer and they are not. This insurgency isn't part of the actual Iraq war that ended on April 9, 2003 when Baghdad fell. Or if you prefer, when Bush declared MAJOR COMBAT operations over in Iraq and declared the mission to oust saddam, accomplished. This is a different phase we are in now. We had the actual war, now we have to deal with the after affects. That being an insurgency. Incase you don't know what an insurgency is:

Insurgency (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/insurgency)

Noun
1. The quality or circumstance of being rebellious.
2. An instance of rebellion; an insurgence.
Actually, the insurgents or "freedom fighters" (most of which are Iraqis) are still technically at war, as there was no formal truce signed or acknowledged by them.

It is good to see that you know how to spell insurgency, now, all you have to do is improve upon your lack of debating skills, which will help improve your lack of credibility.

Actually, the insurgents or "freedom fighters" (most of which are Iraqis) are still technically at war, as there was no formal truce signed or acknowledged by them.

Prove that most of them are Iraqi since everything I'm seeing and reading is that they are not! Now PROVE IT!!

It is good to see that you know how to spell insurgency, now, all you have to do is improve upon your lack of debating skills, which will help improve your lack of credibility.

Your crediblity has been shot in this debate since you tried to use a report that was dated in 1984. YOu've lost most credibility with me because I've called you on several things that you continuously lied about.

Prove that most of them are Iraqi since everything I'm seeing and reading is that they are not! Now PROVE IT!!
Actually it was YOU who made the following statement back in post #263:

And yep, most of them are foreigners. Saudis for the most part too if what I'm hearing is correct. They are the ones responsible for the trouble taking place in Iraq.
I asked you for proof back in post #268, and so far you have been unable to provide that.

I have consistently read that the vast majority of the insurgents are Sunni Arabs who are augmented by terrorist forces from outside Iraq. If you have something that would prove otherwise, please provide the proof.

You cannot or will not provide the proof, because quite simply you can't!!

Your crediblity has been shot in this debate since you tried to use a report that was dated in 1984. YOu've lost most credibility with me because I've called you on several things that you continuously lied about.
First you call me "stupid", and now you call me a liar. Like I stated in my previous post:

"all you have to do is improve upon your lack of debating skills, which will help improve your lack of credibility."

Not only did you not read the article that I posted, you ASSUMED that it referred to the Persian Gulf War of 1990 to 1991, when in fact it referred to the Iraq/Iran Gulf War of 1980 to 1988 (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm). IF you had bothered to read it, it would have refuted your earlier claim that the UN did nothing in regards to Saddam Hussein's use of chemicals against Iran.

IF you cannot back up your claims then you shouldn't make them, and it appears that when you are called upon for proof, you cannot supply it. However, you are the first one to ask others to provide "proof" to back up their claims. That kinda makes you a hypocrite, along with a few other adjectives that I would like to add about your lack of credibility.

Quit making stuff up.....you get caught all the time. :eek:

That idiot joined the Taliban before the United States launched an un-declared war on them. How does that make him a traitor?

He broke a US law by joining a foriegn military force without permission from the US Gov.

if a US citizen were to LEGALLY (with permission from the US gov) join the Canadian (or any other countries) military and then the US declared war and attacked them, the US citizen would NOT be commiting treason to shoot at the US military, if captured, he would be treated as a POW and released when the war was over, most likley, the foriegn military would remove him from the military as a security risk or at least put him in a non combatant job way behind the lines

The US gov. takes the Anthrax threat very seriously, I work in a main sorting facility for the US postal Service, since the Anthrax attacks after 9-11, we have installed, in our facility alone, about 4 million dollars worth of equipment to Test for anthrax (and other biologicals) in first class mail (what our facility sorts) and also an air filtration system on the first stage sorting machines where the biological detectors are

it is costing us at our one facility about $3000 a day for the testing and that is if somthing does not break and I really do not want to be at work if we ever get a positive test, spending 2 to 3 days locked up in a postal facility for decontamination and further testing does not sound like fun to me

I think we're at:

1. There was no use of chemical weapons in the KTO during the 1991 Gulf War, by any side.
To the best of my knowledge, this is true.

2. Saddam possessed and used chemicals weapons of several varieties during the Iran-Iraq War. By Canuck's source, none of these came from the United States.
Because the US denies involvement in that article, it doesn't mean that the US wasn't guilty of supplying chemical and biological agents to Iraq, which I have addressed many times before in other threads. Here is an example:

In a September 25 Senate speech, Byrd however made it clear that he wanted some answers.

The US public "needs to know whether the United States is, in large part, responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which the Administration now seeks to destroy," he said. "We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate."

US government documents showed that from 1985 to 1989 pathogenic, toxigenic, and other hazardous materials were legally exported from the United States to Iraq.
The list of biological items legally exported during that period includes botulinum toxin, anthrax, gas gangrene, and vials of West Nile fever virus and Dengue fever.

The items were shipped by the American Type Culture Collection, a non-profit group that provides biological materials to institutions around the world, and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

Please note the dates, as they are after the 1984 US directive quoted in the other article.

3. Saddam, according to UNMOVIC (we'll leave out US sources, since Canuck thinks they're automatically and always invalid), 1800 gallons of anthrax was unaccounted for after the 1991 Gulf War.
Point to any post that I have made that suggests that US sources are "automatically and always invalid". You are playing the same game as Corneliu, which I find surprising and unfortunate.

4. It was not possible to discover what happened to the missing anthrax until the country was occupied. Because Taha feared death at Saddam's hands, she was never to reveal that she destroyed the anthrax in 1993 - until the Americans came and she could tell of the anthrax without fear of death.
I do remember this story. However, I doubt that the US could use this one example to suggest that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US. You should remember that the UN inspectors were not finding ANY WMD?

5. Canuck thinks it's perfectly OK for a man he believes wantonly used chemical weapons to possess 1800 gallons of anthrax without accounting for it, because Saddam is an OK guy.
You are wrong. I never, ever stated that Saddam was an "ok guy", and my biggest concern was that the US would invade Iraq before the UN inspectors could finish the task that they had been assigned. My worst fears were confirmed and ever since, I and many others like me believe that the US did not want the UN inspectors to complete their task, because if they had, then the US would have had no reason to invade Iraq. IMHO, the US wanted to invade Iraq, take out Saddam and control the country, which is exactly what they have done. Furthermore, the US wants to stay in Iraq, build bases, control business, and of course safe guard the world's 2nd largest reserves of oil.

Canuck believes that the US should never wake up and realize that the bad guys they helped in the past should be put out of power.
Again you are wrong. I believe that the US should stop helping so many bad guys in the first place, because the list of failures is long and still growing. When will the US wake up to that reality? The war against Iraq has been a huge expensive mistake, and the majority of your countrymen/women now agree with that.

He broke a US law by joining a foriegn military force without permission from the US Gov.Please quote the law you're speaking of.

The items were shipped by the American Type Culture Collection, a non-profit group that provides biological materials to institutions around the world, and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.[/i]

The American Type Collection sent material to nearly every country in the world, prior to 9-11. It's not sending weaponized material. If a country misused the samples, it's hardly our fault. However, policies changed after 9-11.

You should also note that other countries ALSO have type collections, and ALSO sent virulent diseases to nearly every country in the world. None of this was done with the idea that they were spreading disease or exchanging weaponized material.

I do remember this story. However, I doubt that the US could use this one example to suggest that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the US. You should remember that the UN inspectors were not finding ANY WMD?


It posed an imminent threat because we could verify that the 1800 gallons had been weaponized, but we couldn't verify what happened to it. The UN could not verify what happened to it, no matter how many times they inspected, or how many times they asked Saddam. Saddam didn't even know - he believed until the end that he had 1800 gallons of anthrax. Taha couldn't say a word - because if she admitted what she did with it (dump it near one of Saddam's palaces) she would be dead.

The ONLY way anyone could get to the bottom of this was to take over the country.

And I'm sure that the Kurds and Shiites would disagree with you that overthrowing Saddam was a mistake.

He broke a US law by joining a foriegn military force without permission from the US Gov.

Correct. That is why I consider him a traitor.

if a US citizen were to LEGALLY (with permission from the US gov) join the Canadian (or any other countries) military and then the US declared war and attacked them, the US citizen would NOT be commiting treason to shoot at the US military, if captured, he would be treated as a POW and released when the war was over, most likley, the foriegn military would remove him from the military as a security risk or at least put him in a non combatant job way behind the lines

Correct as well. I would not have a compunction with him living since he had the permission of the US Government to do what he did. I only object to those that don't have the government's permission. Those that don't have said permission and fight against the US as traitors.

I think that Johnny Taliban lived because of a technical requirement.
I believe that there weren't two live witnesses to any particular overt act that he did.

So, if he was firing a weapon, you would have to have two American citizens witness this. Or if you saw him signing up - once again, two American citizens as witnesses.

We also weren't expecting to find anyone like him. So we were legally unprepared. No policy in place.

Personally I'm all for having a summary court martial right there and then, with three officers, and swinging him at the end of a rope on the spot, fifteen minutes after we captured him. No Guantanamo, no nothing. Perfectly legal, too, as long as we have two American citizens who "witnessed" him with a weapon fighting for the Taliban.

The American Type Collection sent material to nearly every country in the world, prior to 9-11. It's not sending weaponized material. If a country misused the samples, it's hardly our fault. However, policies changed after 9-11.

You should also note that other countries ALSO have type collections, and ALSO sent virulent diseases to nearly every country in the world. None of this was done with the idea that they were spreading disease or exchanging weaponized material.

It posed an imminent threat because we could verify that the 1800 gallons had been weaponized, but we couldn't verify what happened to it. The UN could not verify what happened to it, no matter how many times they inspected, or how many times they asked Saddam. Saddam didn't even know - he believed until the end that he had 1800 gallons of anthrax. Taha couldn't say a word - because if she admitted what she did with it (dump it near one of Saddam's palaces) she would be dead.

The ONLY way anyone could get to the bottom of this was to take over the country.

And I'm sure that the Kurds and Shiites would disagree with you that overthrowing Saddam was a mistake.

Thats the greatest load of shit I've ever read. Seriously. How far detatched from reality are you? So America has invaded Iraq, have they now found those pesky WMDs? No. You could of course always check the receipts, heh. So if the UN inspectors couldnt find them, and the US couldnt find them.... I dont want to sound like a madman here, but I dont think they exist! Besides, its not like anybody cared when Saddam did use Chemical weapons against the Kurds or Iranians.

Its also extremely irresponsible to send chemical/biologicial agents to a nation such as a Iraq, but I suppose back then, Saddam was "our kind of guy".

Thats the greatest load of shit I've ever read. Seriously. How far detatched from reality are you? So America has invaded Iraq, have they now found those pesky WMDs? No. You could of course always check the receipts, heh. So if the UN inspectors couldnt find them, and the US couldnt find them.... I dont want to sound like a madman here, but I dont think they exist! Besides, its not like anybody cared when Saddam did use Chemical weapons against the Kurds or Iranians.

Its also extremely irresponsible to send chemical/biologicial agents to a nation such as a Iraq, but I suppose back then, Saddam was "our kind of guy".

How is that a load of shit? The 1800 gallon account with Taha (the woman who ran the Iraqi bioweapons program) has been verified by examining the place where she dumped it. It's been in a wide variety of news sources - the New York Times and the Washington Post, to name a few.

The UN reported that the 1800 gallons was unaccounted for. Not the US. The UN. Are you saying the UN was full of shit? Are you saying that 1800 gallons of unaccounted-for anthrax poses no threat to anyone, since a kilogram is enough to kill millions of people if you toss it off the top of a high building?

Are you saying that the American Type Collection is not a biological research agency similar in type and function to many other type collections world wide? Are you saying that the American Type Collection makes weaponized biological agents by the ton and exports them to crazy world leaders?

The American Type Collection sent material to nearly every country in the world, prior to 9-11. It's not sending weaponized material. If a country misused the samples, it's hardly our fault. However, policies changed after 9-11.

You should also note that other countries ALSO have type collections, and ALSO sent virulent diseases to nearly every country in the world. None of this was done with the idea that they were spreading disease or exchanging weaponized material.
Considering that the US issued a directive in 1984, why would anything be sent to Iraq that could be "weaponized"?

On 30 March, the UN Security Council issued a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War. Evidently none of the five permanent member used its veto power to block the condemnation. That same day the US government announced that it was instituting special licensing requirements for exports to Iraq and Iran of particular chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that it had urged other governments to do likewise. Other governments have since taken similar steps.

It posed an imminent threat because we could verify that the 1800 gallons had been weaponized, but we couldn't verify what happened to it. The UN could not verify what happened to it, no matter how many times they inspected, or how many times they asked Saddam. Saddam didn't even know - he believed until the end that he had 1800 gallons of anthrax. Taha couldn't say a word - because if she admitted what she did with it (dump it near one of Saddam's palaces) she would be dead.
Here is where the wheels fall off your argument.

1. Iraq was NOT denying that their inventory indicated that they possessed this anthrax, and I am sure that they would like to know what happened to it?

2. What delivery system did Iraq have available that would make this weapon an "imminent threat" to the US? The longest range missile that Iraq possessed was the Al Samoud 2 which could travel a whole 93 miles (without a payload). And Iraq was in the process of destroying these missiles under UN orders. And of course, we all know that the Iraqi air force was virtually non existent due to the no fly zones.

3. In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams were looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears." Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

4. The UN was looking to increase the number of inspectors in Iraq, which was supported by most members on the Security Council.

The ONLY way anyone could get to the bottom of this was to take over the country.
So you are going to spend almost $200 Billion, lose over 1600 US troops, injure over 10,000 US troops, kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, severely damage the Iraqi infastructure, alienate many traditional allies, and destabilize the Middle East to get to the "bottom of this"?

And I'm sure that the Kurds and Shiites would disagree with you that overthrowing Saddam was a mistake.
I am sure that they don't appreciate the methods employed by the US to achieve the US goals. I am also fairly certain that they would like the US out of Iraq, ASAP.

I am sure that they don't appreciate the methods employed by the US to achieve the US goals. I am also fairly certain that they would like the US out of Iraq, ASAP.

That is highly questionable, at least from the Kurds. Although many Shiites want the US out, it has a lot more to do with having us get out of the way so they can avenge themselves on the Sunnis than any other motivation.

If the US and allies leave now, there would be nothing whatsoever from preventing a full scale civil war and a high likelihood of genocide on the scale at Rwanda 10 years ago. Not a desirable situation from any reasonable point of view.

The arguements for US initial intervention are at this point moot. Whether going into Iraq was immoral, a strategic mistake of the first order, a noble cause, or a vital strategic necessity for the US, none of those matter now. The simple fact is that now we are in Iraq and leaving abruptly would create worse conditions for the people of Iraq than remaining does.

At this point, more Iraqi civilians are being killed by various insurgents than US or Allied military personnel (by a huge margin). The insurgents are attacking the government and economic structure of Iraq, not the occupying powers. So what we have is a civil war now (low level but very definite). If the US and its allies magically left tomorrow, would this change? Or would it be even worse? The evidence tends to support that it would be far worse.

The US created the situation, and has the responsbility to clean it up. The American people therefore have the responsibility to support the needed force structure required to support that mission. Therefore, if you join the military at this time, you have to expect to go to war. Regardless of whatever sales pitch a recruiter gives you.

I think that Johnny Taliban lived because of a technical requirement.
I believe that there weren't two live witnesses to any particular overt act that he did.

So, if he was firing a weapon, you would have to have two American citizens witness this. Or if you saw him signing up - once again, two American citizens as witnesses.

We also weren't expecting to find anyone like him. So we were legally unprepared. No policy in place.

Personally I'm all for having a summary court martial right there and then, with three officers, and swinging him at the end of a rope on the spot, fifteen minutes after we captured him. No Guantanamo, no nothing. Perfectly legal, too, as long as we have two American citizens who "witnessed" him with a weapon fighting for the Taliban.

And how, pray tell, would you try him by a military court?

Considering such would be in violation of commission findings till present regarding such. Considering he was in the service of a "recognized government".. He would have been protected under Geneva Convention (III)
Article 4, Section 1-1

As such, a summary, on the spot "Courts Martial" would be in violation of Article 19

According to your logic and applying it to a similar situation Mr. Legs, the US should immediately undertake an invasion of the Russian Federation, simply to determine what WMDs the Russians posses and ensure they arent used against the US. Apparently ICBM silos across Russia are dilapedated, rusting to pieces, manned by disgruntled troops who dont get regular pay. And thats saying nothing of Bioprepiat program. The security of these sites is a grave concern to all, especially because the weapons sitting in these silo's are capable of striking cities over 5,000 km away - compared with the farthest Iraq could get a SCUD - Israel, a little more than 1,000?

Surely supplying a authoritarian state with the means to produce WMDs is folly. Do you think if I sent weapons grade plutonium to North Korea, Iran or Israel that those countries wouldnt set about making the most of that oppurtunity? Suppose Iraq did indeed have WMDs. It clearly does not have the capability to use them. Saddam surely would have know that the US invasion spelt the end of his reign, and would use any means possible to retain the power which he craved...why didnt he use his WMDs against the invading troops?

As far as i'm concerned, supplying any nation with the means to protect its populations against diseases [anti-viral etc] such as anthrax is a noble and worthwhile project. Actually supplying nations with antrax is not constructive in anyway, and very irresponsible.

That is highly questionable, at least from the Kurds. Although many Shiites want the US out, it has a lot more to do with having us get out of the way so they can avenge themselves on the Sunnis than any other motivation.

If the US and allies leave now, there would be nothing whatsoever from preventing a full scale civil war and a high likelihood of genocide on the scale at Rwanda 10 years ago. Not a desirable situation from any reasonable point of view.

The arguements for US initial intervention are at this point moot. Whether going into Iraq was immoral, a strategic mistake of the first order, a noble cause, or a vital strategic necessity for the US, none of those matter now. The simple fact is that now we are in Iraq and leaving abruptly would create worse conditions for the people of Iraq than remaining does.

At this point, more Iraqi civilians are being killed by various insurgents than US or Allied military personnel (by a huge margin). The insurgents are attacking the government and economic structure of Iraq, not the occupying powers. So what we have is a civil war now (low level but very definite). If the US and its allies magically left tomorrow, would this change? Or would it be even worse? The evidence tends to support that it would be far worse.

The US created the situation, and has the responsbility to clean it up. The American people therefore have the responsibility to support the needed force structure required to support that mission. Therefore, if you join the military at this time, you have to expect to go to war. Regardless of whatever sales pitch a recruiter gives you.
When I stated, ASAP, I didn't mean tomorrow or for that matter, any time soon. As Soon AS Possible. It will take awhile. What will be interesting to see, is what will happen when the Iraqi government finally asks the US troops to leave. My guess is that the US wants to maintain a long term presence in Iraq, much like the long term stay in Germany after WW2.

When I stated, ASAP, I didn't mean tomorrow or for that matter, any time soon. As Soon AS Possible. It will take awhile. What will be interesting to see, is what will happen when the Iraqi government finally asks the US troops to leave. My guess is that the US wants to maintain a long term presence in Iraq, much like the long term stay in Germany after WW2.

it would not serve US interests to remain in Iraq once asked to leave. The whole point was to bring democracy (according to the neo Cons) and destroy a dangerous regime. Staying past that would completely undermine what credibility that does exist. Besides, remaining in Iraq is not worth the cost, the logistical demands or the long term need for stability in the Middle East that the US wants. It is just as easy to remain in Kuwait (which does love us for liberating them), and there simply aren't any vital base areas that we would get in Iraq that make it worthwhile to stay.

The only reason the US could justify staying is if Iran or a hostile Saudi Arabian regime threatened to invade Iraq (if the Saudi crown was overthrown by a fanatically anti western regime that is more conservative and anti western than the current regime).

The American people simply wouldn't let a US President get away with it once the mission was declared over (the rebuilding of Iraq), especially if the Iraqis asked us to leave.