NationStates Jolt Archive

Eutrusca: make with some factual evidence re: the purported spitting on soldiers, or just stick a finger down my throat already. You've ranted, raved, and gone on ever-increasingly paranoid flights of fancy in your determination to prevent this supposed indignity from re-occuring, yet you've never substantiated this oft-repeated claim of yours.

And for the record? Good for Cindy Mother-loving Sheehan. Call her all the names you want, she faced down her enemy - a corrupt and morally bankrupt regime, the men who needlessly caused the death of her son while fighting in an unjustified, illegal war staged as bread and circuses for a nation of emotionally-stunted stimulus addicts - and let herself be arrested by those who act on that regime's behalf, knowing that her cause is just and right.

I'd have thought you might have conceded some measure of respect for her on the basis of this article, not seized this as yet another opportunity to make broad unsubstantiated allusions to most likely apocryphal episodes of days gone by. Colour me unsurprised, yet still disappointed, Eut.
Get this straight:

I have never, nor am I, nor ever will I even suggest that anyone be denied their right to express their opinion, regardless of how demented it might be! Nor have I, am I, or will I ever suggest that anyone be prohibited from "peaceable assembly."

Now, having said that, am I not entitled to the same treatment? Can I not speak my mind? Do I not have the same freedom to speak? If the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan wants to pick up a loudspeaker and tell the entire world that her dead son paid her a visit last night and told her to demand a meeting with the President of the United States of America, she is free to do so. But at least grant me the right to protest her speech and her protest.

Perhaps the fact it was based on no evidence whatsoever? Or maybe it was because we were in a crazed authoritative "kill all the fucking Arabs" mentality after 9/11, which Bush exploited to his full advantage. Or perhaps you'd like to return to the dark ages, where there is no such thing as "illegal" or "legal" war, just war. Endless, perpetual war. War with no end in sight. Wait a minute...We already have that!
legal and illega wars is such a pathetic idea. The very thought that war can be "policed" just means that the nation with the most power can do what every they want while the nation with no friends is just asking to be taken over! Oh wait that means that the Yanks can do whatever they want and the rest are helpless. I may support this war but that does not mean that I support the Yanks doing what ever they feel like.

NO!!!!!!! this is not a fucking illegal war for two of the top of my head reasons.



1)congress voted almost entierly to go to war.

2)sadaam violated several treaties placed by the U.N. (which the U.S. signed) allowing millitary action to be taken by the U.S. on that reason alone.

THIS IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR!!!!! and if you are sooo angry take that anger out on the congress man who voted to let him go to war not just bush!
That is my point exactly!

The fact that the legality of the war is not being disputed in court and that legal justification for the war was presented to the United Nations by the United States and Great Britain . And the fact that the war meets the criteria of a "war " by both the United Nations definition and the Hague convention and other relevant treatys makes this war in FACT legal until adjudged otherwise by the appropriate body .

The documentation is in another thread , one of the hundreds that seem to bring up this subject . :rolleyes:
awesome!! I don't care!!! The fact of the matter is, that Bush made his case for war based off of shaky if not fabricated evidence but what's worse is his inability to admit even the smallest mistake on his part. Perhaps that's a virtue, to hold steadfast to your beliefs, but so is integrity, which he has none of.

He's also repeatedly abused the War Powers Act of 1973, the only piece of legislature giving this war its legality. He's hardly done any reporting on the "scope and duration of hostilities," which is required in Sec. 4. (c) of the War Powers Act. He's failed to present a case for his war and the only reason Congress has continued to give it funding is the fact that the majority are Republican and by voting against funding would probably cost them their reelection, or they are convinced it is the right thing to do anyway (which 30% of Americans still are).

awesome!! I don't care!!! The fact of the matter is, that Bush made his case for war based off of shaky if not fabricated evidence but what's worse is his inability to admit even the smallest mistake on his part. Perhaps that's a virtue, to hold steadfast to your beliefs, but so is integrity, which he has none of.

He's also repeatedly abused the War Powers Act of 1973, the only piece of legislature giving this war its legality. He's hardly done any reporting on the "scope and duration of hostilities," which is required in Sec. 4. (c) of the War Powers Act. He's failed to present a case for his war and the only reason Congress has continued to give it funding is the fact that the majority are Republican and by voting against funding would probably cost them their reelection, or they are convinced it is the right thing to do anyway (which 30% of Americans still are).

And all this and thirty five cents will get you a phone call maybe .
The war exist it is reality and must be taken to its conclusion. If you like to protest the actions taken vote for someone else and vote for a congressman or senator that think as you do . In reality the war must be taken to a conclusion that will not create worse condition than existed before the war .
Please do not neglect the fact that the majority of democrats both supported the war and have funded it . Also do not neglect the fact that 80 percent or more of your countrymen supported the war and that our soldiers are fighting and dying to bring it to a successfull conclusion .
The rest is all bullshit .

... reality ...
There's your first mistake, trying to describe an elephant to a blind man. :(

And all this and thirty five cents will get you a phone call maybe .
The war exist it is reality and must be taken to its conclusion. If you like to protest the actions taken vote for someone else and vote for a congressman or senator that think as you do . In reality the war must be taken to a conclusion that will not create worse condition than existed before the war .
Please do not neglect the fact that the majority of democrats both supported the war and have funded it . Also do not neglect the fact that 80 percent or more of your countrymen supported the war and that our soldiers are fighting and dying to bring it to a successfull conclusion .
The rest is all bullshit .
Please take into account that only 30% of Americans support the war now, I don't care about when it started, that was three and a half years ago. Also take into account that Bush's apporval rating is lower than Clinton's when he was impeached. Do not neglect the fact that more and more Americans (not to mention the rest of the world) are waking up and realizing that this war could quite possibly have been a total mistake.

Your signature made me think of this little gem said by Bush: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."
So much for "Wanted Dead or Alive", White House, Mar. 13, 2002
Also note the date he said it. If we were in Iraq to fight terrorism, why would we not care about Osama, the guy who is actually guilty!?

And on Bush's integrity, I think this explains it all when remembering the above quote: "Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
-- Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004

Please take into account that only 30% of Americans support the war now, I don't care about when it started, that was three and a half years ago. Also take into account that Bush's apporval rating is lower than Clinton's when he was impeached. Do not neglect the fact that more and more Americans (not to mention the rest of the world) are waking up and realizing that this war could quite possibly have been a total mistake.

Your signature made me think of this little gem said by Bush: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."
So much for "Wanted Dead or Alive", White House, Mar. 13, 2002
Also note the date he said it. If we were in Iraq to fight terrorism, why would we not care about Osama, the guy who is actually guilty!?

And on Bush's integrity, I think this explains it all when remembering the above quote: "Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
-- Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004

Can you point me to that poll ? At any rate ask yourself this what happens if the US packs up and leaves Iraq ? What are you advocating ? The war must be prosecuted to its successfull conclusion for the sake of the United States , Iraq and the region . Thats reality . Osama ...whats he up to lately ? do you have the location of his hole in the ground ?

Your signature made me think of this little gem said by Bush: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him [Osama bin Laden]."

And that was understood by most rational people to mean that Osamas on the run and hunted and I am not worried about him because he will eventually be caught and dealt with . Thats when taken in context and not a sound bite , Get real do not let idiology get in the way of rationality .

You can respect her right to protest and still think she is an asshole for the way she acts , what she says and the way she says it and who she chooses to say it with . Those that need to express an opinion of Sheehan have as much of a right to expression as she has . Or are you forgetting that .
I repeat:

"If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing."

Your view of the war is not shared by the majority
The majority of Americans now believe this war was a mistake. When you get outside your country the numbers go up, not down. Yeah, I think I share similar views with the majority.

nor those that are actually doing the fighting and dying .
Perhaps not the majority of soldiers but not all soldiers agree with this war.

so saying she has more of a right than anyone or impling that her cause is somehow noble or more noble than any other has no validity .
I never said that she has "more of a right". So please don't put words in my mouth. However her "cause" is a noble one and yes I do think it is "more noble" than the "cause" of the perpetrators of this illegal, immoral war.

Also note the date he said it. If we were in Iraq to fight terrorism, why would we not care about Osama, the guy who is actually guilty!?



you are right....unless you count sadaam's interragation chambers and cells,sadaam violating treaty after treaty,sadaam gassing a village of people,calling on people to rise against the americans,taking money from aid packages for the poorer people of iraq while he lives in a a few palaces,killing his political rivals who he thought were against them.....plus more.But if you dont count that well......ok he is a great guy :rolleyes:

Perhaps not the majority of soldiers but not all soldiers agree with this war.


well most must think that the war is going good since the american army is a voluntary army.

I repeat:

"If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing."


The majority of Americans now believe this war was a mistake. When you get outside your country the numbers go up, not down. Yeah, I think I share similar views with the majority.


Perhaps not the majority of soldiers but not all soldiers agree with this war.


I never said that she has "more of a right". So please don't put words in my mouth. However her "cause" is a noble one and yes I do think it is "more noble" than the "cause" of the perpetrators of this illegal, immoral war.


So skip all the bullshit and explain what you would have done . Might as well get right to the point. What now ? What would you do ? The war is a reality all the carping and " noble " anti - war bullshit non- withstanding ..what would you do if you were in charge tomorrow istead of ranting ? What actions would you take ?

That's a committed women. To what? I don't know, but damn she is committed.

So skip all the bullshit and explain what you would have done . Might as well get right to the point. What now ? What would you do ? The war is a reality all the carping and " noble " anti - war bullshit non- withstanding ..what would you do if you were in charge tomorrow istead of ranting ? What actions would you take ?
I definitely would have waited for the UN inspectors to finish their job and heeded their request for more inspectors.

I definitely would not have invaded as long as the inspectors were making headway, which they were.

Bush & Rumsfeld ignored the requests for more troops BEFORE invading. Appears to be a huge mistake, but alas that is hindsight.

I would not have declared "mission accomplished" while the war was still ongoing.

I would not have forced elections on the people while the war is in progress.

I would not have stationed armed guards at polling stations.

I would not have insisted on a timetable for the production of a constitution.

I would not have set up an economic takeover of the Iraqi economy through Bremers Orders.

I would not have disbanded the Baathist Party, and would have sought inclusion for the Sunnis.

I would not have called insurgents...terrorists.

I would not have stated..."You are either with us or against us".

I would not have invaded Iraq without a 2nd Resolution by the Security Council.

I would have been quicker to apologize about the atrocities at Abu Gharib.

I would not have sent in ground troops with inferior protection.

I would not have made a prediction that the war would end quickly.

I would not have employed "Shock and Awe". The terminology alone sounds like the actions of a tyrant.

I would have studied my history texts to realize that this part of the world is perhaps the most difficult to occupy.

I would have spent more of the appropriations to get the Iraqi infastructure up and running sooner.

I would not have accepted favourtism in the awarding of contracts.

I would not have destroyed Fallujah, in retaliation for the four contractors who were killed.

Realizing that the occupation was degenerating and that the Iraqis would rather see my troops gone, I would have accelerated the withdrawal of troops and the training of Iraqi replacements.

There is more, but it is late and I need my beauty rest. :rolleyes:

That's a committed women. To what? I don't know, but damn she is committed.
I’m committed to facing the wall in elevators just to weird people out.

I definitely would have waited for the UN inspectors to finish their job and heeded their request for more inspectors.

I definitely would not have invaded as long as the inspectors were making headway, which they were.

Bush & Rumsfeld ignored the requests for more troops BEFORE invading. Appears to be a huge mistake, but alas that is hindsight.

I would not have declared "mission accomplished" while the war was still ongoing.

I would not have forced elections on the people while the war is in progress.

I would not have stationed armed guards at polling stations.

I would not have insisted on a timetable for the production of a constitution.

I would not have set up an economic takeover of the Iraqi economy through Bremers Orders.

I would not have disbanded the Baathist Party, and would have sought inclusion for the Sunnis.

I would not have called insurgents...terrorists.

I would not have stated..."You are either with us or against us".

I would not have invaded Iraq without a 2nd Resolution by the Security Council.

I would have been quicker to apologize about the atrocities at Abu Gharib.

I would not have sent in ground troops with inferior protection.

I would not have made a prediction that the war would end quickly.

I would not have employed "Shock and Awe". The terminology alone sounds like the actions of a tyrant.

I would have studied my history texts to realize that this part of the world is perhaps the most difficult to occupy.

I would have spent more of the appropriations to get the Iraqi infastructure up and running sooner.

I would not have accepted favourtism in the awarding of contracts.

I would not have destroyed Fallujah, in retaliation for the four contractors who were killed.

Realizing that the occupation was degenerating and that the Iraqis would rather see my troops gone, I would have accelerated the withdrawal of troops and the training of Iraqi replacements.

There is more, but it is late and I need my beauty rest. :rolleyes:



WOW!!!! i am lazy so i never can type that much.

The actual quotes are of 2 seperate topics. The first one was talking about terrorists and their supports. the second is actually about the WMD. If you are going to quote someone make sure you get the quote right!

Go look at his post. Two topics in one post. So I addressed both points.


And since we do KNOW for a fact they were in Iraqi possession and they haven't been found how would you explain it?

Oh really? Know for a fact eh? And what evidence did you use to come by to know it was a fact? Interviews with a person who had a political agenda? Satelite photos of "dual-use" items that were somehow construed to be single use? Please, come up with something better than that.

The Administration called the UN report as something with holes big enough to drive a tank through. I call their intelligence in this case holey enough to make a moth eaten cloth look whole.

So like I said, where are these so-called "WMDs" mmm? After all, the administration was oh-so sure that they knew where they were and what they were right.

Additionally, I might ask, if they did exist, why were they not used? Why bury them instead? Seems like a case of stupid if you have a weapon and instead of using it on an invader, you bury it.

Before you even think about saying that they were transported out to Syria on trucks, I will pre-empt you by saying you don't know what was inside. If indications are anything, it could very well have been gold and whatever valuables Saddam was trying to sneak out before bailing when the Coalition came knocking.

We don't know what was in them. Calling them WMDs is merely a guess with no more evidence behind it than a puff of wind.

Oh brother! what makes this an illegal war? One country invaded another, there were battles and the first country wins. Most other times the invaded country would then become part of the first country. :mad:

It is illegal based on a small document signed by the US indicating that they would rely on the UN to determine whether they had a right to wage an aggressive war or not depending on the votes of other signatory nations. The US didn't get the vote. That's a treaty violation.

There's your first mistake, trying to describe an elephant to a blind man. :(

Reality is subject to perception Eut. That and labels. It is only because you percieve things his way that you call it reality. If someone saw it in a different way, you would call it delusion.

I repeat:

"If one disagrees with her cause, then that is what debate and discourse is for. But to attack her person with verbal diatribe, bitterness and hatred proves that she is right and that her son did die for nothing."


The majority of Americans now believe this war was a mistake. When you get outside your country the numbers go up, not down. Yeah, I think I share similar views with the majority.


Perhaps not the majority of soldiers but not all soldiers agree with this war.


I never said that she has "more of a right". So please don't put words in my mouth. However her "cause" is a noble one and yes I do think it is "more noble" than the "cause" of the perpetrators of this illegal, immoral war.

Actually I think since you claim to represent the " majority " I'll answer this .

The majority of Americans now believe this war was a mistake. When you get outside your country the numbers go up, not down. Yeah, I think I share similar views with the majority

So you claim. if you are reffering to "polls" to back up this assertion than I will point out to you that "polls" claimed Kerry would win the election and that polls also say the Majority of Americans think we have to finish what we started in Iraq and that the troops need to stay until the jobs done .
The numbers outside of the United states count for little or nothing inside the United States.

Perhaps not the majority of soldiers but not all soldiers agree with this war.




That shows that our soldiers value Honor and duty .

I never said that she has "more of a right". So please don't put words in my mouth. However her "cause" is a noble one and yes I do think it is "more noble" than the "cause" of the perpetrators of this illegal, immoral war.

The fact that you feel the war is illegal has absolutely no bearing what so ever on its legality. It is in fact legal until judged otherwise .
as to it being an "immoral" war . Well can a war that is fought to remove a Despot and aggressor who is proven to be irrational in his decisions on who and how he attacks other nations be judged immoral ? After this dictator is removed he is replaced with a government chosen democraticly by the people of the country he formerly ruled . And this process is helped along and encouraged by the very power that removed him . The same power that is helping to rebuild the economy and the infastructure and is training the army and the police and equiping it and that once the country is able to secure itself will withdraw its troops ..can these actions also be considered immoral ?
You are of course free to have the opinion that this particular war is somehow immoral ...But I feel free and secure in telling you that you are mistaken and somewhat naive in thinking that this particular war is " immoral" . You may want to reserve that term for a more proper use .

It is illegal based on a small document signed by the US indicating that they would rely on the UN to determine whether they had a right to wage an aggressive war or not depending on the votes of other signatory nations. The US didn't get the vote. That's a treaty violation.



Reality is subject to perception Eut. That and labels. It is only because you percieve things his way that you call it reality. If someone saw it in a different way, you would call it delusion.


yes but the U.S. also signed a treaty of "rules" for iraq to fellow...sadaam violated these time and time again....and by U.N. law that gives the U.S. the right to "enforce" set laws...even with the military.

Sheehan... What can I say. She is an attention whore.

Waah waah my son died. Waah Waah

Sheehan... What can I say. She is an attention whore.

Waah waah my son died. Waah Waah





yeah i never liked her....but at the begining at least you can say "but she isa greaving mother"now........not so much.


she smiles when she is carried of by the cops...you know why....because she knows the world is watching this publicity stunt.

They should have being singing and playing Bob Dylan songs too.

yes but the U.S. also signed a treaty of "rules" for iraq to fellow...sadaam violated these time and time again....and by U.N. law that gives the U.S. the right to "enforce" set laws...even with the military.

You have a relevant link showing where it states the right of military intervention and governmental change to enforce a treaty?

yeah i never liked her....but at the begining at least you can say "but she isa greaving mother"now........not so much.


she smiles when she is carried of by the cops...you know why....because she knows the world is watching this publicity stunt.

Exactly!!!! :p :fluffle:

Sheehan... What can I say. She is an attention whore.

Waah waah my son died. Waah Waah I betcha if your wife, son, daughter(I'm presuming you're a guy) died you'd be like that too. :sniper:

They should have being singing and playing Bob Dylan songs too.



actually they had a drums and a stage :p

You have a relevant link showing where it states the right of military intervention and governmental change to enforce a treaty?



no i dont....do you have a link saying other wise.

Sheehan... What can I say. She is an attention whore.

Waah waah my son died. Waah Waah

But when Bush whores for attention, it's called "leadership."

Evil Evil Evil Terrorist Terrorist Terrorist Hate Out Freedom Freedom Freedom Stay The Course Stay The Course Our Troops Sacrifice, ad infinitum.

yeah i never liked her....but at the begining at least you can say "but she isa greaving mother"now........not so much.


she smiles when she is carried of by the cops...you know why....because she knows the world is watching this publicity stunt.
What would be the point of protesting privately? Sitting in her room all by herself in a snit?

You guys always act like you've 'cracked the code.' 'Pff, she's just trying to get publicity for her anti-war movement.'

Uh, yeah...are you new here or something?

I gotta say, I probably would've been there myself apart from the fact that I'm 13 and live in New Zealand

What would be the point of protesting privately? Sitting in her room all by herself in a snit?

You guys always act like you've 'cracked the code.' 'Pff, she's just trying to get publicity for her anti-war movement.'

Uh, yeah...are you new here or something?



NO i am not new...you must using your friends login name well here we do it this way......WE PLACE OUR OPINIONS OF WHAT WE THINK now play in traffic for the children.

no...no i am new that is why i have around 730 posts :rolleyes:

NO i am not new...you must using your friends login name well here we do it this way......WE PLACE OUR OPINIONS OF WHAT WE THINK now play in traffic for the children.
Such a cute little scamper, aren't ya?

Care to tell me how that adresses what I said? I'm well aware that everyone places their opinions in posts-I don't see how that is relivant however.

Are you suggesting that Sheehan should contain her protests to Nationstates? That seems a little silly.

Such a cute little scamper, aren't ya?

Care to tell me how that adresses what I said? I'm well aware that everyone places their opinions in posts-I don't see how that is relivant however.

Are you suggesting that Sheehan should contain her protests to Nationstates? That seems a little silly.



Uh, yeah...are you new here or something?


from your first post.

from your first post.
Here in a broader sense, like-the modern world where media is how we spread information and ideas.

EDIT: And I still don't see how it address' the larger point, rather instead kinda froths at the mouth about something tangetial. Taking the whole post in hand, even if you think I was refering to just Nationstates, it's still nonsensical.

..And taken to its logical extremes it makes the RAF pilots of bomber command no different to the scum in the Einsatzgruppen SS: because, after all, they both killed innocent civillians. I however recognize that the SS deserve the epithet inhuman babykillers, whereas the pilots of bomber command do not...
Just on the side (I'm suprised no one seemed to care):
How come? Why is one different to the other.

One won the war, the other didn't. Granted.
But both knew they were killing innocent civilians, and both accepted it as what is "necessary to win the war". It has not been shown that the Terrorbombings of WWII actually served to end, or even shorten the war significantly. Neither did things like Peiper's drug bonanza in the Ardennes.

I agree that much of the SS was full of war criminals, but I don't follow your reasoning for declaring the RAF (or the USAF) free of guilt.

I don't get it.

The same people who get hyper-defensive about comparing the Iraq war to the Vietnam war think it is somehow appropriate to compare the protests of those two conflicts.

Just because Cindy Sheehan is a media hound doesn't make her wrong. She has an opinion, and she has the means to make that opinion heard. Why do people think that such actions are only becoming of career politicians and news anchors? How many polticians, including Bush, flew down to the Gulf Coast for photo ops, despite a complete inability to actually help with anything?

As has been stated previously, most of the people protesting the war have little animosity towards the actual soldiers. I for one (being a former infantryman who actually, voluntarily, transferred to a different unit so as to deploy to Kuwait during a sketchy period in 1996...ah the foolish machismo of youth) would like nothing more than for our troops to be brought home safe and sound. I hate to see people around the world killing each other, but we don't make things any better by involving ourselves in their conflicts. Have we ever actually improved a situation by going in and trying to install a new gov't? If anyone can name an example, I would love to hear it. Their are murderous regimes all over the world, and many bastions of terrorism...hello, Saudi Arabia...but we simply do not have the resources to wage war/ make peace/ bring freedom/ christianize across the entire globe. And even if we did, would we have the right? Why is it ok for us to march around shoving god-fearing democracy down people's throats, but wrong for people to come here with their bombs and their islamic fundamentalism?

Here's another question: why is it wrong for us to assassinate foreign leaders to affect change, but ok to invade a country and kill countless civilians to affect that same change...often leaving the leaders responsible for whatever policies we disagreed with unharmed (or perhaps facing a prison sentence, complete with all included amenities)? Some fancy gentleman's agreement, where the people in power agree not to hurt each other, and let the poor unwashed masses duke it out in their names. Been going on for centuries...millenia...and you ignorant, blind patriots just love it. You love being used and stepped on, looking up at your corporate and political masters with adoring eyes as you lick the shit off of their boots. "But, but...we have freeedom! We can buy whatever goods we like at reasonable prices! If we work hard and save, we can even visit foreign lands, assuming our gov't isn't upset with them! Look at my new TV, it's so big!"

Must...calm...down...

I say, if the leaders of nations have a dispute, let them deal with each other directly...or, since they are mostly a group of pathetic petty thugs and bullies, peppered with the occasional dandy, maybe they can appoint a champion to fight on their behalf. The only reasons to have a standing army under executive control are to 1) impose your will on a foerign people, or 2) control your own people. You don't need a standing army for defence. Aside from countless other examples from history, look at the most relevant. In Iraq, it was their standing army that got clobbered. It is the freedom fighters/ insurgents/ rebels/ patriots who are giving our 21st Century Fighting Force such headaches.

The world is a confusing and contradictory place. I don't presume to understand it. This is what makes me so much wiser and better than the people in charge. I know better than to inflict my will on other people. I will epxress myself, to be sure...and I will defend myself when the need arises. But I don't shoot my neighbor for sharing different viewpoints...or even for having loud parties at night (and failing to invite me!). And the vast majority of the time, I can rest easy in the assumption that my neighbor isn't going to shoot me, either. Despite sensational tv shows and movies, as well as sensationalistic news reports, we here in the civilized world just don't have that much to fear, as far as such things go. And we wouldn't need to fear the "less civilized" folks if we would just quit selling them weapons of mass destruction.

The moral, people, is this: You don't know what the hell you are talking about, and neither do I, and neither does anyone with more money or power than we have. So shut up, mind your own business, and don't point your guns at anyone who isn't actually threatening you. Turn off Fox News and read your New Testament. Maybe you'll learn something.

It is illegal based on a small document signed by the US indicating that they would rely on the UN to determine whether they had a right to wage an aggressive war or not depending on the votes of other signatory nations. The US didn't get the vote. That's a treaty violation.

That small document binds both partys to an agreement , The UN has a responsibility to fullfill its part of the aggreement . Taking over ten years to force a beligerant to satisfy the terms of a cease fire is by no rational means keeping to your part of the aggreement . You cant expect only one party to be held to a treaty . Come up with a better argument because frankly that one sucks .



Reality is subject to perception Eut. That and labels. It is only because you percieve things his way that you call it reality. If someone saw it in a different way, you would call it delusion.

Maybe you need to look at the reality of the situation concerning the United Nations ?

You have a relevant link showing where it states the right of military intervention and governmental change to enforce a treaty?
Go read the UN resolutions authorizing force .

Just on the side (I'm suprised no one seemed to care):
How come? Why is one different to the other.

One won the war, the other didn't. Granted.
But both knew they were killing innocent civilians, and both accepted it as what is "necessary to win the war". It has not been shown that the Terrorbombings of WWII actually served to end, or even shorten the war significantly. Neither did things like Peiper's drug bonanza in the Ardennes.

I agree that much of the SS was full of war criminals, but I don't follow your reasoning for declaring the RAF (or the USAF) free of guilt.


Putting aside for the moment the contentious issue of how effective night time strategic bombing was - although there is a fair amount of evidence that RAF bomber command and eighth AAF campaign of 1943 did shorten the war by wrecking german internal communications thus allowing the Russians greater freedom of action on the eastern front - the primary purpose of those sorties at the time was never the destruction of civilian life for the sake of it but, rather, it was strategic in that it was aimed at the reduction of Germany's warfighting infrastructure. The loss of civilian life was viewed as an unfortunate consequence that was acceptable when compared to expected damage to heavy industry, transportation networks and other infra-structure.

(Now, I am not going to say that there weren't plenty of allies that were quite happy that bombs were being dropped on German civilians, but that was never the actual purpose).

And whatever conclusion you actually come to about bomber command and the AAF, it, at the very least, colorably served a legitimate military purpose. At least insofar as the men who conducted those missions could be said to be following legal orders.

This is in sharp contrast to death camps, that really were incidental to fighting WWII in terms of legitimate military objectives. One could argue, I suppose, that the camps provided slave labor for a failing economy, but that in of itself does not justify the wholesale mass executions that obviously served no purpose other than an attempted genocide and occurred irrespective of the demand for slave labor.

I think in that in terms of total war, one is acceptable, and one is not. I think most people agree with me too.

Go read the UN resolutions authorizing force .

Authorizing force to insure compliance with the weapons inspection program taking place in Iraq at the time, the same programs that Hussein was cooperating with. I swear, you Busheviks take that Resolution as a blank check to go medieval on a society and then rest of the time masturbate to the rhetoric that the United Nations is irrelevant.

Have we ever actually improved a situation by going in and trying to install a new gov't? If anyone can name an example, I would love to hear it

Afghanistan . Is it ok if you just read it ? I dont think you will hear me if I scream and I do not have your phone number . Also Germany after WW2 and Japan for a start. digest those for a while . Wanna buy a Honda ? Maybe a hyundai from Korea ?

Authorizing force to insure compliance with the weapons inspection program taking place in Iraq at the time, the same programs that Hussein was cooperating with. I swear, you Busheviks take that Resolution as a blank check to go medieval on a society and then rest of the time masturbate to the rhetoric that the United Nations is irrelevant.

I am not a Bushevik and since you have no argument at all , I should have expected a foolish response such as I have recieved .I shall just have to live and learn I guess . Also in reguards to your masturbating I suggest you leave it alone if you do it may grow .

It is illegal based on a small document signed by the US indicating that they would rely on the UN to determine whether they had a right to wage an aggressive war or not depending on the votes of other signatory nations. The US didn't get the vote. That's a treaty violation.



The UN charter is not a binding treaty. It is not binding because the parties to it have been ignoring its provisions since its inception. Thus it has lost any force of law. (Christ, you'll be talking about how the US is in violation of the Treaty of Tripoli next).

Anyway, the provision you cite was most recently "violated" prior to US intervention in Iraq, by Canada: when they bombed Serbia in 1999 (UN resolution authorizing force june 8 1999: Canada had been bombing since april. Bloody chuffed to bits with themselves too, in fact that I think the current Prime Minister said something along the lines that the UN had become irrelevant). I didn't see anyone shouting "illegal" then. (And Canada can't weasel out on the regional provision, because Serbia is not a regional issue for Canada, and if it is, then we get that pass for Iraq doubly so, because the US actually had rather a large presence in the area before this).

The UN charter is not a binding treaty. It is not binding because the parties to it have been ignoring its provisions since its inception. Thus it has lost any force of law. (Christ, you'll be talking about how the US is in violation of the Treaty of Tripoli next).

Anyway, the provision you cite was most recently "violated" prior to US intervention in Iraq, by Canada: when they bombed Serbia in 1999 (UN resolution authorizing force june 8 1999: Canada had been bombing since april. Bloody chuffed to bits with themselves too, in fact that I think the current Prime Minister said something along the lines that the UN had become irrelevant). I didn't see anyone shouting "illegal" then. (And Canada can't weasel out on the regional provision, because Serbia is not a regional issue for Canada, and if it is, then we get that pass for Iraq doubly so, because the US actually had rather a large presence in the area before this).

If I was not already married I would ask you to marry me :)

You obviously ignored the news reports of a terrorist who drove his vehicle into a group of schoolchilden and then blew himself up.

And you then obviously ignored the report from our major US enemy (Zarqawi) that he renounced that action and accepted no part of it.

And you then obviously ignored the report from our major US enemy (Zarqawi) that he renounced that action and accepted no part of it.


Yep it was the other really mean terrorist . Zarqawi must be the good one ...he only saws off the heads of hostiges while they are alive and posts the video on the internet . He draws the line at some of the children . The one's he did authorize .

If I was not already married I would ask you to marry me :)

That's the most flattering thing anyone has said to me all day.

Silent protest would be nice. ;)

Hey .... you know that I am one of the few "liberal pinko" leftists who respect the soldiers, but I must ask you, gramps, would you really ever deny Cindy Sheehan her right to do as she does?

She cannot be compared to Hanoi Jane.

Cindy is merely expressing her rights as a citizen of the United States.

And you then obviously ignored the report from our major US enemy (Zarqawi) that he renounced that action and accepted no part of it.

That's the guy who said killing other innocent muslim civilian bystanders is okay? Right?

Well, I am sure it was all just some horrible misunderstanding then.

Yep it was the other really mean terrorist . Zarqawi must be the good one ...he only saws off the heads of hostiges while they are alive and posts the video on the internet . He draws the line at some of the children . The one's he did authorize .

Not the same thing. If you can't see it, I just have to feel sorry for you.

Eutrusca must have a serious hard-on for Mrs. Sheehan, as much as he talks about her.

That's the guy who said killing other innocent muslim civilian bystanders is okay? Right?

Well, I am sure it was all just some horrible misunderstanding then.


No ... no no not at all. There is no instance in which the killing of innocents is acceptable.

You're taking what I say out of context because I am a Muslim.

Not the same thing. If you can't see it, I just have to feel sorry for you.


Please feel sorry for me and explain what is not the same thing . remember the soldiers giving out candy and the children being blown to bits ? Why were they different than these particular children ? And how is Zarqari somehow a "better " form of terrorist because he condemed this particular act.? After commiting so many others . Please enliten me , I live to be enlitened .

No ... no no not at all. There is no instance in which the killing of innocents is acceptable.

You're taking what I say out of context because I am a Muslim.

How could we possibily know that without you telling us ?

No ... no no not at all. There is no instance in which the killing of innocents is acdeptable.

You're taking what I say out of context because I am a Muslim.

I don't see what you being a muslim has to do with it. I would have said that to anyone who attempted to legitimize the "insurgency." Especially with the faint claim that blowing up school children can't be considered part and parcel of these murders MO because zarqawi disavowed it. The man is an unalloyed shit, and just because he panics when he thinks things might have gone a little to far in the media doesn't mean we should take his protestations as evidence that deep down he actually might be doing the right thing.

Please feel sorry for me and explain what is not the same thing . remember the soldiers giving out candy and the children being blown to bits ? Why were they different than these particular children ? And how is Zarqari somehow a "better " form of terrorist because he condemed this particular act.? After commiting so many others . Please enliten me , I live to be enlitened .

For the same reason you'll express that Pfc. England doesn't equate to the US Military.

A tiny faction of idiots blew up some kids. I'm sorry, but that one faction doesn't equate to all ....... or does it?

If it does, can I go ahead and accept that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians

<snip> and just because he panics when he thinks things might have gone a little to far in the media doesn't mean we should take his protestations as evidence that deep down he actually might be doing the right thing.

The same logic can be applied to Abu Ghraib and the military command

Not to equate degradation with murder, so please don't say that by pointing out this I do that.

For the same reason you'll express that Pfc. England doesn't equate to the US Military.

A tiny faction of idiots blew up some kids. I'm sorry, but that one faction doesn't equate to all ....... or does it?

If it does, can I go ahead and accept that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians

Excuse me ? I never said nor did I imply by anything I ever thought or said or typed or dreamed , that all muslims were in any way represented by this slime ; On the very videotape with which he advertised his beheading of American communications-tower repairman Nick Berg in May, Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, appended a theological message. Berg's murder, the masked man intoned, was sanctioned by Islam's holiest texts. " Has the time not come for you to lift the sword, which the master of the Messengers [Muhammad] was sent with?" al-Zarqawi asked. " The Prophet ... has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr ....

You claimed he " renounced " the action in wich a car was driven into a group of children and exloded . I replied that " did this somehow make him a better terrorist or a good terrorist ? Show me what I could have possibly written that could lead you to believe I grouped or judged or compared all muslims by the actions of that intestinal worm ? He has dammed himself by his actions against men women and children , muslims and non muslim.

The same logic can be applied to Abu Ghraib and the military command

Not to equate degradation with murder, so please don't say that by pointing out this I do that.

That's just a silly thing to say. Zarqawi is a criminal. He has personally called for the deaths of innocent civilians and sawed peoples heads off, videotaped it, and posted it on the internet. You really can't say the same thing about military command.

And in case it escaped your notice, something was actually done about abu ghraib. Whatever Zarqawi might have said, he's actually done bugger all to prevent the deaths of bystanders. You'd have a point if Pfc. England wasn't facing a nine year jail sentence, but as she is, you don't.

You claimed he " reputed " the action in wich a car was driven into a group of children and exloded . I replied that " did this somehow make him a better terrorist or a good terrorist ? Show me what I could have possibly written that could lead you to believe I grouped or judged or compared all muslims by the actions of that intestinal worm ?


Hehehehe ... It still makes me chuckle.

Nathan Hale and George Washington were laballed as "terroriists".

It just cracks me up that you have those blinders on.

Yes .... Zarqawi is a freedom fighter .... would I join his cause? I don't know.

Wait a second he " renounced " blowing up this bunch of children . What about all the other children his group ahs blown up , how are they different ?

Why are these particular children renouncable ? And HOW does it make him a " nicer " terrorist for renouncing this particular group ?

Ok I get it...I called the weasel a terrorist intead of a " freedom fighter " ,
Who 's freedom is this particular blight on society fighting for ? And how does tageting and killing civilians qualify you for the honor of being a " freedom " fighter .

Why is he NOT a terrorist by these definitions ?

is a label for one who personally is involved in an act of terrorism. Terrorist tactics may also be used by dissident groups or other non-state actors to achieve political ends or for purposes of extortion. The term "terrorism" originated from the French 18th century word terrorisme (under the Terror).
www.indexuslist.de/keyword/Terrorism.php

Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.html

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal. The targets of terrorist acts can be government officials, military personnel, people serving the interests of governments, or civilians. Acts of terror against military targets tend to blend into a strategy of guerrilla warfare. According to one view, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Random violence against civilians (noncombatants) is the type of action

If the shoe fits wear it ? Or do you have a different definition of terrorist ?

Afghanistan . Is it ok if you just read it ? I dont think you will hear me if I scream and I do not have your phone number . Also Germany after WW2 and Japan for a start. digest those for a while . Wanna buy a Honda ? Maybe a hyundai from Korea ?

Afghanistan: Yet to be resolved, and from what I can READ the people are not yet much better off, and still live in fear to a great extent. And our troops still haven't come home from there yet, hmmm...but I do have my fingers crossed for this one!

Japan after WWII: You may want to review your history books, to see who governed Japan before, during, and after that war. I will grant you this: The limitations imposed upon them after they surrendered, namely that they were not allowed to build an offensive military, allowed them to become one of the dominant economies, and a major player in world finance. Lesson: smaller (and, by necessity, non-imperialistic) army = (quite possibly, no guarantees) healthier economy.

Germany after WWII: Mutilateral effort, in regards to West Germany. Stability and growth had more to do with economic assistance. See: Marshall Plan. Or, if you want to reinforce my point about the failure of forcibly installed gov't, then see: Treaty of Versaille.

Korea: Korea? Can't be talking about North Korea. Must mean South Korea. I forget, when did we invade them and install a new gov't, again?

"Those who ignore (or are ignorant of) history are doomed to repeat it."
--George Santayana (parenthetical is mine)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
--Benjamin Franklin

Why are these particular children renouncable ? And HOW does it make him a " nicer " terrorist for renouncing this particular group ?

Don't care, you shit. You only label him a terrorist because of your preconceived notions.

Unfortunately, you've forgotten your own Bush rally cry

It is the Legal right to peacbly asemble, though i donot know about a permit (witch is why they were arested) no one attacked anyone, execpt that retard who jumped the fence and got taken down by SS :)

I personaly dont suport the war but i do suport our troops.

It is not the warriors falt he is called to duity and he cannot control where he will be sent to serve.

One marine who goes to Iraq could be spit apon by some person then be sent to the huricaine desaster zone and be praised by the same person who spat on him. WTF is that about? a bit hipocritical i would think.

For the same reason you'll express that Pfc. England doesn't equate to the US Military.

A tiny faction of idiots blew up some kids. I'm sorry, but that one faction doesn't equate to all ....... or does it?

If it does, can I go ahead and accept that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians

That's the falacy of equivalance. You are essentially suggesting because A is similar to B, and B is C, therefore A is C. (And as a corrolary D is C).

It doesn't work that way. Pfc. England and the US army have no logical connection to the proposition that based upon past actions the entire insurgency are criminals, and zarqawi is, amongst other things, a psycopathic liar.

I see no reason, given the calculated bloodthirstyness of these so-called insurgents, to doubt that the whole lot of them tacitly approve of the incident with the school children. I also suspect that there will be more such incidents of a similar nature, which people will likewise try to sweep under the rug.

And please remember in all this, that if the US withdraws, it is zarqawi and his ilk who will end up running Iraq.

You only label him a terrorist because of your preconceived notions.


No-one's "labelling" him a terrorist. He is a terrorist.

Pfc. England and the US army have no logical connection to the proposition that based upon past actions

Okie dokie chief. That's why our perception of Quran matters!

Heaven forbid we get it wrong!!!

No-one's "labelling" him a terrorist. He is a terrorist.

Define "terrorst"?

If you can't, ok ....

Don't care, you shit. You only label him a terrorist because of your preconceived notions.

Unfortunately, you've forgotten your own Bush rally cry

Did I attack you, small minded disallusioned one , or your argument ?

Your hole is calling crawl back in before daylight .

It is the Legal right to peacbly asemble, though i donot know about a permit (witch is why they were arested) no one attacked anyone, execpt that retard who jumped the fence and got taken down by SS :)


It has long been accepted in US law that time, manner and place restriction can be put upon demonstrations. For example, you wouldn't want a bunch of people to "peaceably assemble" on the roadway of the brooklyn bridge on monday morning because of the traffic problem it causes.

Likewise, because of security concerns - ever since someone shot at the Whitehouse when Clinton was in office - and because of the huge number of tourists who come to visit the whitehouse, loitering outside is prohibited. You have to move along when asked.

If Shehan asked for a use permit to protest the war at Federal Hall in NYC, the government would have to grant it - provided she agreed to stage it during opening hours or pay for the staff after 6 p.m. - and she could stage her protest all day long to her heart's content.

Define "terrorst"?

If you can't, ok ....

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism. (n)

Of, or relating to terrorism. (adj.)

Okie dokie chief. That's why our perception of Quran matters!

Heaven forbid we get it wrong!!!

So the koran alters symbolic logic? Your perception of the Koran has nothing to do with logical fallacy.

And quote the whole thing.

It doesn't work that way. Pfc. England and the US army have no logical connection to the proposition that based upon past actions the entire insurgency are criminals, and zarqawi is, amongst other things, a psycopathic liar.


The entire "insurgency", from the begining have been engaged in illegal acts, under both Iraqi domestic and international law. Ergo they are criminals. They are not "freedom fighters", they are not "patriots", they are not "defending their homeland": They are now, and always have been criminals. What Pfc. England may or may not have done has no bearing on that whatsoever. (Nor does the Koran, which after all is a religious text, and should have no bearing upon law anyway.)

Edit: And I thought you claimed earlier that they weren't muslims anyway, so what should anyones perception of the koran have to do with anything anyway? Or are they muslims again now?

So the koran alters symbolic logic? Your perception of the Koran has nothing to do with logical fallacy.

And quote the whole thing.




The entire "insurgency", from the begining have been engaged in illegal acts, under both Iraqi domestic and international law. Ergo they are criminals. They are not "freedom fighters", they are not "patriots", they are not "defending their homeland": They are now, and always have been criminals. What Pfc. England may or may not have done has no bearing on that whatsoever. (Nor does the Koran, which after all is a religious text, and should have no bearing upon law anyway.)


Actually the Sharia is based on the Koran and is the basis of law in some muslim states . It doesnt say that if you kill civilians you are a freedom fighter ANYWHERE . :D Its odd all the muslims I know consider Al Zaquari a terrorist except some extremist I know that consider his methods repugnent but call him a jihadist . When he's tracked down and captured or killed maybe he will have I.D. on him to clear it up .

That's just a silly thing to say. Zarqawi is a criminal. He has personally called for the deaths of innocent civilians and sawed peoples heads off, videotaped it, and posted it on the internet. You really can't say the same thing about military command.

And in case it escaped your notice, something was actually done about abu ghraib. Whatever Zarqawi might have said, he's actually done bugger all to prevent the deaths of bystanders. You'd have a point if Pfc. England wasn't facing a nine year jail sentence, but as she is, you don't.

Actually it BECAUSE she faces a jeail sentence that I can make that comparison. Is that not the military COMMAND expressing it's disapproval of what happened at Abu Ghraib? Excatly as Zarqawi expressed disapproval of the bombings of the children in question.

My point is that the logic you put forth can still apply in both cases. Neither you nor me can tell wether either party is indeed remorseful or wether it's
a case of "oh, this didn't go down well with my supporters, let's distance ourselves from it"

Only difference is that Zarqawi can go quite a bit further than the US military before some of his supporters starts crying 'foul'

EDIT:typos, yes I know I should rectify that kind of thing BEFORE I hit the send button.

So NO, it is not a silly thing to say. The things I say may be put there by psychotic cyber-monkies in my brain, but they are never silly.

:rolleyes: Give it a fucking rest, Etrusca. I don't recall seeing any accounts of Sheehan spitting on soldiers.
(The religious right, btw, are already making a nuisance of themselves at the funerals of war dead, and I doubt anyone is likely to call Fred Phelps a liberal.)

Oh, please. :rolleyes: . This woman has become a nutcase, plain and simple, and a disgrace to the thousands of other families who have lost members in Iraq.

And if the Westboro Baptists can be considered the religious right, then I'm Karl Marx, while Bush is probably closer to Mao. Honestly, that was the worst comparison I have heard for some time. Just goes to show - half this ignorant world doesn't have a clue what religious folk here are actually like. I'm religious, and I consider myself conservative - does that mean I want to torture homosexuals, ban science from schools, and make Christianity the state religion? Before you answer yes, do take some time to reconsider such views and return a better informed person ;)

Those bunch (the Westboro Baptists) are just as absurd as Sheehan, and quite honestly sound like a Christian version of our old Islamic-extremist buddy Usama. Saying that the deaths of soldiers are a punishment for our heathen nation, and whatnot...

Actually it BECAUSE she faces a jeail sentence that I can make that comparison. Is that not the military COMMAND expressing it's disapproval of what happened at Abu Ghraib? Excatly as Zarqawi expressed disapproval of the bombings of the children in question.

Disapproval and punishment. I don't believe Zarqawi has called for any punishment. In other words, command has done more than express remorse and sweep it under the rug. There has also been full inquiries, and it has been a transparent process, by and large, since it came to light.

My point is that the logic you put forth can still apply in both cases. Neither you nor me can tell wether either party is indeed remorseful or wether it's
a case of "oh, this didn't go down well with my supporters, let's distance ourselves from it"

I suppose my basic point is this, I believe that virtually everyone serving in the US millitary (99.9%) is actually shocked and upset whenever these stories of abuse come out. And quite often they are the first people to condemn them, and the first to call for actual punishment - as per the rule of law. They are also overwhelmingly upright law abiding citizens. And who for the most part want just to get back to the states and be reunited with their families.

This is in sharp contrast to zaqari and his ilk, who seem to feel that hacking people's heads off and putting video of it on the internet is a great way to spend a weekend. Also, zaqari is personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, whose murders he had planned, participated in or oversaw.

It is because of this difference, I can say make a judgment on whom I believe to be remorseful, and whom I do not. And I can't honestly believe that zaqari, who has been plotting the death of US citizens since before -though that seems to escape our muslim friend who likes to think of him as a righteous freedom fighter- the US invaded Iraq, has an ounce of remorse in his worthless body.

The man is a proven mass murderer. Of innocent men, woman and children. So I think it is fair to doubt what he says. The same is hardly true of the US military, much as apologists for the terrorist scum would like imply it.


Only difference is that Zarqawi can go quite a bit further than the US military before some of his supporters starts crying 'foul'

EDIT:typos, yes I know I should rectify that kind of thing BEFORE I hit the send button.

So NO, it is not a silly thing to say. The things I say may be put there by psychotic cyber-monkies in my brain, but they are never silly.

And another difference is that Zarqawi is himself a proven psychotic bloodthirsty maniac. Whether or not he expresses remorse over this incident. In fact, it is largely irrelevant in any assesment of him if you look at his history.

Not at all. The "issue at stake" is the disrespect and maltreatment of soldiers, something I have stated time and time again that I will not sit idly by and allow to happen? What part of this do you not understand?
Mainly the fact that you've been unable to cite any specific examples of this happening in the last couple of years. (Unless one counts the fact that Bush is wasting a large number of their lives by tilting at windmills in pursuit of a PR coup, of course.) As I've pointed out before, assuming that all anti war protestors are out to disrespect the troops because a few idiots spat at GIs in the early '70s is a similar logic to assuming that the American military in the gulf is composed entirely of dim sociopaths who joined up purely in order to torture POWs.

I suppose my basic point is this, I believe that virtually everyone serving in the US millitary (99.9%) is actually shocked and upset whenever these stories of abuse come out. And quite often they are the first people to condemn them, and the first to call for actual punishment - as per the rule of law. They are also overwhelmingly upright law abiding citizens. And who for the most part want just to get back to the states and be reunited with their families.

I spent four years in the U.S. military, as an infantrymen, with a couple of overseas tours, including Kuwait. I think you are vastly over-estimating the moral fiber of those who serve in the armed forces. What you have to remember is that they are just like other people in most respects, except that many of them joined up because they had no other options. In the units I served in (combat arms units...there may be differences in non-combat units, due to a variety of factors), there were above average rates of alcoholism and domestic abuse. In my four years, I personally knew three soldiers to be court martialed for drug related offenses (involving theft and burglary), one to be incarcerated for child molestation, and several to be turned over to civilian authorities for weapons and assault charges. Even the ones who were relatively normal (which was really most of us) were mostly there for the college money, not out of any sense of patriotic obligation or sense of honor or duty. Why do you think retention rates are so low, even in peace time?

So while I agree with you on your basic point -- that MOST of the military personnel would condemn such acts -- I would disagree that it is anything like 99.9%. I can recall many conversations throughout my service period about what may or may not go on in a combat situation, or during an occupation (these conversations frequently followed viewings of films such as Platoon or Full Metal Jacket), and many of my fellow soldiers confessed to a certain eagerness to indulge in the rape, pillage, and burn acts of soldiering. I'd usually say something like "I'd shoot you before I let you rape or kill some innocent," and it was almost always me who got shouted down, rather than the ones playing barbarian. Not that my comments were exactly civilized, but there you have it.


And I, too, would be interested in learning of reports of abuse of soldiers within the past few years. Many people I know are currently against the war, but supportive of the troops. And the people I know who are considering enlisting aren't getting any flack for it. Of course, I don't know anyone enlisting in order to go fight, mostly just because they are willing to risk it for the college money and benefits. If somebody were to say "I wanna go shoot me some rag heads," then that person may not be so welcome at dinner parties...at least, not the kind that I attend.

That small document binds both partys to an agreement , The UN has a responsibility to fullfill its part of the aggreement . Taking over ten years to force a beligerant to satisfy the terms of a cease fire is by no rational means keeping to your part of the aggreement . You cant expect only one party to be held to a treaty . Come up with a better argument because frankly that one sucks.

Ah, so if someone breaks an agreement with me, one which if he does so, he is forced to pay a fiscal penalty, I can black his eye and break his arms too?


Maybe you need to look at the reality of the situation concerning the United Nations ?

Reality which you percieve is not quite the same as reality that someone else percieves. Why do you think witness accounts differ sometimes?

The UN charter is not a binding treaty. It is not binding because the parties to it have been ignoring its provisions since its inception. Thus it has lost any force of law. (Christ, you'll be talking about how the US is in violation of the Treaty of Tripoli next).

Anyway, the provision you cite was most recently "violated" prior to US intervention in Iraq, by Canada: when they bombed Serbia in 1999 (UN resolution authorizing force june 8 1999: Canada had been bombing since april. Bloody chuffed to bits with themselves too, in fact that I think the current Prime Minister said something along the lines that the UN had become irrelevant). I didn't see anyone shouting "illegal" then. (And Canada can't weasel out on the regional provision, because Serbia is not a regional issue for Canada, and if it is, then we get that pass for Iraq doubly so, because the US actually had rather a large presence in the area before this).

Ah, so others have violated the letter and spirit of the treaty. Does that give you a blank license to do so without suffering the same label of one who has broken a treaty?

Do not claim righteousness merely because others before you have done the same.

-snip (SS vs Allied Airraids)-
Well, I guess everyone needs to build their own vision of the world...but you'll forgive me if I don't consider anyone involved with the bombings a...friend of mine.
:)

I boycott this thread. I don't care about this Sheehan woman.

Since I need you to know I'm boycotting it, I have to post in it. Which means I'm still contributing to it, in a way. So my boycott is going to start AFTER this post:).


sorry meant only as a joke...but i aint talking ever again to you..cept for the last time which was the last time..i mean not anymore...starting now...but just let me say..lol....
all in jest...i could give 2 shits about shee ehag or the bushovites...i just wanna laugh anymore. :fluffle:

Fred Phelps represents no one except Fred Phelps. And I never stated that I thought the dishonorable Ms. Sheehan ever spit on soldiers. I only indicated that this is the same pattern I and my brothers endured during and after Vietnam.

wow dude,
i am 110% behind you on most things..and especially about sheehole,what a fricken twit....but pullin out the i was a soldier card on every thread is belttling your service...if they get it they get it..if they dont they dont.
my granddad was a ww1 vet...blinded with gas,my dad got shot all to hell in korea..i never heard them once bitch abut there issues or the freakin tards protesting.
the most i ever saw was a shake of the head(with the knowingly look)be careful what u wish for.

if they want terrorists and want to be appeasers..so be it...they will pay dearly...like the jews did when they let themselves be disarmed..i myself prefer to look at life logically,i aint gonna shake my fist at stupidity...pointless,i will bide my time,store my ammo,then when all the let's be friends crowd are in internment camps.....i will happily walk away knowing they brought it on themselves.
then you can chase me down and kill me...wow..drama..lol,but i for sure aint gonna argue with twits and i aint gonna help them when they get screwed(remember neville chamberlain)

i guess my point is that your pissing into the wind...right or wrong...whats the point?
they think we should do this or that,you think we should do this or that...no one is gonna agree...ever...you can make your points...valid as they may be..and they can make there points as well.
fortune looks well on the prepared one i think....so i will digest my disdain for that horrible women sheehag,knowing it matters not a bit my opinoun,even though i thought the war was stupid as well....but we are there and now have to deal with it,...or should i say the kids getting shot and blown to pieces have too.
my kid is going over there...which i hate,and if i could i would take his place,but they wont let me...i am cynical and used up so me getting killed aint no biggie,but my kid...shit...i want him to have a life...and sheehag can pound sand if she disrepects my kid..which she is doing.

heres a pic of my kids by the way...just so everyone knows it is real people that have loved ones worried and scared for them.....i would go in a ny minute to take some kid's place....i would be scared and probably get killed but i would to save a kid....sheehan just is being used and getting her 15 minutes of fame..

if she cared so much...go negotiate with the terrorists....or mikey moore could,he is a spin docter par exsallance,i'm sure they would be agreeable to his view of the world and his tolerence for all things that go completely against their religion..ie...jews/homosexuality/womens rights...etc.

i swear..people like to rant(like me) but have no logic behind there rant.

people everyday are coddling the terrrorists,making excuses and blaming the us/west....ok...see how tolerant osama and his ilk are of your evil ways....soft whiners love to bitch and moan...but if it wasnt for america....they would have beards and the women would be in beekeeper suits...yet the worst offenders of islam are the staunchest allies..funny i think...so i will store ammo and water...and when the shtf..have a nice day..but to get back on subject...why waste your time dude,,,,you either have honor and know right from wrong or you prattle on and on about nonsense...nothing is gonna change that.
rant off :sniper:

wow dude,
i am 110% behind you on most things..and especially about sheehole,what a fricken twit....but pullin out the i was a soldier card on every thread is belttling your service...if they get it they get it..if they dont they dont.
my granddad was a ww1 vet...blinded with gas,my dad got shot all to hell in korea..i never heard them once bitch abut there issues or the freakin tards protesting. ...why waste your time dude,,,,you either have honor and know right from wrong or you prattle on and on about nonsense...nothing is gonna change that.
You have a telegram. :)

Ah, so others have violated the letter and spirit of the treaty. Does that give you a blank license to do so without suffering the same label of one who has broken a treaty?


Yes, that's exactly how treaties work. Especially multi-party ones without enforcement provisions. When the signatories ignore the provisions and repeatedly violate them without penalty for years and years on end, they cease to have any effect.

If this had been a recurrent issue since 1945, then perhaps you would have a point. But you cannot ignore a treaty for over fifty years and then expect it to have binding force of law.

For example, the US never officially withdrew from the five power naval treaty, would you seriously contest that it is still binding? Same with the UN charter, the time to have this discussion would have been during the Korean war, or the suez crisis, or the arab-isreali conflicts, or when turkey dropped paratroops in cyprus, or when nigeria annexed biafra, and so forth. Indeed, 1999 would have been a good time, when even Canada seemed to take the position that the UN was no longer relevant. It is too late now to start pointing fingers. It's not binding, because so many of the parties to it have repeatedly violated it without sanction, it can have no legal effect.

(It's also not binding because of the Consitutional limits to the US power to cantract treaties as well).

Argue the morality of the war all you want, just don't make the fictious charge of "illegal."

I spent four years in the U.S. military, as an infantrymen, with a couple of overseas tours, including Kuwait. I think you are vastly over-estimating the moral fiber of those who serve in the armed forces. What you have to remember is that they are just like other people in most respects, except that many of them joined up because they had no other options. In the units I served in (combat arms units...there may be differences in non-combat units, due to a variety of factors), there were above average rates of alcoholism and domestic abuse. In my four years, I personally knew three soldiers to be court martialed for drug related offenses (involving theft and burglary), one to be incarcerated for child molestation, and several to be turned over to civilian authorities for weapons and assault charges. ....in the Latest war...Many have joined on Immigration considerations...A Friend of mine accepted to enlist because otherwise he was going to be deported to Mexico.

Well, I guess everyone needs to build their own vision of the world...but you'll forgive me if I don't consider anyone involved with the bombings a...friend of mine.
:)

Hey, I don't imagine anyone who knows someone, or has relatives, that were bombed can ever feel good about the guys who dropped them.

The point is, in the context of WWII, the RAF was acting on a strategic plan - purportedly - the civilian casulties were a consequence and not the main goal of the bombing.

That is fairly clear when you look at the target lists. Esp. After 1941. Even dresden was supposedly intended to sever the rail communications.

Oh, and it's not a vision I built. Bomber command built it. And 8th AAF even used to bomb during the day, because they felt that night bombing generated too much collateral damage and so rarely hit the intended strategic target that the only way to effectively conduct a strategic bombing campaign was in daylight with a norton bomb sight.

Disapproval and punishment. I don't believe Zarqawi has called for any punishment. In other words, command has done more than express remorse and sweep it under the rug. There has also been full inquiries, and it has been a transparent process, by and large, since it

A. It was a fucking suicide bomber. How the fuck do you punish someone who already killed themselves? Thats like saying we let Guerring(Or whoever it was, name escapes me at the moment) go, because he escaped punishment by killing himself before we could kill him?

B. The insurgency hardly has the cohesion of the US army, certainly not strong enough to bring individuals up and punish them, except for higher ups.

Yes, that's exactly how treaties work. Especially multi-party ones without enforcement provisions. When the signatories ignore the provisions and repeatedly violate them without penalty for years and years on end, they cease to have any effect.

If this had been a recurrent issue since 1945, then perhaps you would have a point. But you cannot ignore a treaty for over fifty years and then expect it to have binding force of law.

For example, the US never officially withdrew from the five power naval treaty, would you seriously contest that it is still binding? Same with the UN charter, the time to have this discussion would have been during the Korean war, or the suez crisis, or the arab-isreali conflicts, or when turkey dropped paratroops in cyprus, or when nigeria annexed biafra, and so forth. Indeed, 1999 would have been a good time, when even Canada seemed to take the position that the UN was no longer relevant. It is too late now to start pointing fingers. It's not binding, because so many of the parties to it have repeatedly violated it without sanction, it can have no legal effect.

(It's also not binding because of the Consitutional limits to the US power to cantract treaties as well).

Argue the morality of the war all you want, just don't make the fictious charge of "illegal."


So, if the UN charter has no effect, and if - as some people here have complained about - it took over a decade with no proper enforcement of such UN resolutions as were put in place after the gulf war, alsthough with violations of them by both Iraq and the US/UK coalition (refusal to implement the phased relaxation of sanction tied to disarmament, the lack of attempting to implement a WMD-free zone in the middle east, the usurpation of Iraqi soveriieng territory via the no-fly zones which were unilaterally put in place, etc), then the other whole argument I hear around here that the invasion was correct in order to enforce these resolutions is also pretty bogus.

I mean, according to you these treaties no longer were in force due to issues of non-compliance and neglect.

So at this point we not only get to toss out the issue of the non-existant WMD, toss out the issue of the tenuous-to-non-existant ties to al qaeda, AND toss out non-compliance with UN resolutions as the reasons for this war since - according to you - these treaties were null and void, let alone disolving the entire legitimacy of the UN once you have binned the charter.


So why the hell are you there again?


Because "freedom is on the march?"

You know for someone who gets about 2% media coverage outside of the states- and appears to be vilified by most networks- you sure keep bringing her up alot.... if you stopped, then she would probably go away ;)

But no, please continue to make new threads on her and keep brining her to the publics attention. :)

Okay, I've had my fill with all this. Eutrusca -

What would you have us do? Break up the protests with the army? Ban peaceful assembly? Ban free speech? Just a little something to make Saddam proud, and have Hitler turn over in his grave? Perhaps we could have our own Tiennamen Square? Tanks crushing peaceful protestors whom disagree with the 'old guard?' Or would you prefer something more intimate, like a Kent State?

You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. You like Democracy? Well I sure hope you do, considering your stance on the Iraq war. Well if you support Democracy, then you support the rights that come with that, including Free Speech, and Peaceful Assembly(yes, even if it gets to the point of ppl bitching at/protesting the soldiers). Either you support those rights or you do not. Supporting them situationally is tantamount to not supporting them at all. After all, it's not a 'right' if we can ban it when someone says/protests something we don't like.

You are more logical than this. You may not like what she says, but your commentary suggests we should do something to stop her, which is precisely what we CANNOT do. After all(to look at this from your point of view), which is the bigger victory for the enemy - a questionable morale boost from anti-war protestors, or the knowledge that however indirectly, the 'terrorists' destroyed the Bill of Rights? I thought so.


Beautiful!! Hoisted on his own petard!!
You rock!!

I never said they spit on the soldiers and I am not saying they are trying to get people to attack the soldiers. Your reading comprehension is obviously in doubt now! My comments are and always will be that the soldiers returning from Vietnam were treated like the scurge of humanity. People like this woman and the attitude they spread are having the same effect. The men and women that are fighting the war against Terror deserve our respect and gratitude not to be treated like Pariahs!

And we DO respect the troops. We know damn well THEY don't want to be there, either...and that THEY didn't start the war.

We support the troops by wanting to bring them home - WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE!!

We do NOT support the military brass, or the Administration, that got us into this fucking quagmire!

The first rule is...when you're in a hole, QUIT DIGGING!! But Rummy and Rice and Bush insist on continuing digging...and at what cost to American lives?!?!

It is not worth it. The nation of Iraq...nor Iraqi citizens...are worth the lives of AMERICAN soldiers.

Who we WOULD like to spit on is Bush, and Rummy, and Rice, and Wolfowitz, and the rest of the criminal gang that make up this rotten, misguided, CRIMINAL Administration!

Eutrusca: make with some factual evidence re: the purported spitting on soldiers, or just stick a finger down my throat already. You've ranted, raved, and gone on ever-increasingly paranoid flights of fancy in your determination to prevent this supposed indignity from re-occuring, yet you've never substantiated this oft-repeated claim of yours.

And for the record? Good for Cindy Mother-loving Sheehan. Call her all the names you want, she faced down her enemy - a corrupt and morally bankrupt regime, the men who needlessly caused the death of her son while fighting in an unjustified, illegal war staged as bread and circuses for a nation of emotionally-stunted stimulus addicts - and let herself be arrested by those who act on that regime's behalf, knowing that her cause is just and right.

I'd have thought you might have conceded some measure of respect for her on the basis of this article, not seized this as yet another opportunity to make broad unsubstantiated allusions to most likely apocryphal episodes of days gone by. Colour me unsurprised, yet still disappointed, Eut.

Hee, hee...Dobbs, you rock!
Yes, America...sorry it hurts, but Dobbs' description IS accurate...we really ARE a nation of emotionally-stunted stimulus addicts.

Beautiful!! Hoisted on his own petard!!
You rock!!

Thanks. I'm honored. :)

So, if the UN charter has no effect, and if - as some people here have complained about - it took over a decade with no proper enforcement of such UN resolutions as were put in place after the gulf war, alsthough with violations of them by both Iraq and the US/UK coalition (refusal to implement the phased relaxation of sanction tied to disarmament, the lack of attempting to implement a WMD-free zone in the middle east, the usurpation of Iraqi soveriieng territory via the no-fly zones which were unilaterally put in place, etc), then the other whole argument I hear around here that the invasion was correct in order to enforce these resolutions is also pretty bogus.

I mean, according to you these treaties no longer were in force due to issues of non-compliance and neglect.

So at this point we not only get to toss out the issue of the non-existant WMD, toss out the issue of the tenuous-to-non-existant ties to al qaeda, AND toss out non-compliance with UN resolutions as the reasons for this war since - according to you - these treaties were null and void, let alone disolving the entire legitimacy of the UN once you have binned the charter.


So why the hell are you there again?


Because "freedom is on the march?"

Haha, very well said! Kudos! :)

NO!!!!!!! this is not a fucking illegal war for two of the top of my head reasons.



1)congress voted almost entierly to go to war.

2)sadaam violated several treaties placed by the U.N. (which the U.S. signed) allowing millitary action to be taken by the U.S. on that reason alone.

THIS IS NOT AN ILLEGAL WAR!!!!! and if you are sooo angry take that anger out on the congress man who voted to let him go to war not just bush!

Quit giving Bush a free pass!! Bush LIED to america, and LIED to Congress about the need, and urgency, for this war. Many congressmen who voted for the war have said they did so based on their belief that the now-proven-false information that they were given was true!

So, if Bush had given them the straight dope...instead of LYING...they likely would not have supported his war, and he damn well knew it, so he lied to get what he wanted, and that makes the war illegal.

Haha, very well said! Kudos! :)

It's rather hard to argue that the UN is an effective organization.

It has presided over most of the massacres of the last 50 years, or stood by and watched them happen, or facilitated them.

It has legitimized war.

I feel that it's going to be overhauled, but I have the feeling that the overhaul is going to be forced on it by the United States.

If Kofi Annan's spineless mewling is any indication of that, get ready to have Mr. Bolton turn the UN into the Arm of the Western World.

Ah, so if someone breaks an agreement with me, one which if he does so, he is forced to pay a fiscal penalty, I can black his eye and break his arms too?



Reality which you percieve is not quite the same as reality that someone else percieves. Why do you think witness accounts differ sometimes?



You cant break a treaty that has been invalidated . The United Nations is a hollow shell of a broken promise. It needs to be reformed or it shall remain irrelevant . The UN had ten years to force compliance on the cease fire . Ten years is an unreasonable ammount of time to wait. The UN is a failure. Its made itself irrelevant and proven that nations can not rely on it to look after their security interest . Saying the United States broke the UN treaty is a non starter . The United Nation broke its promise to the nations that entered into the treaty by failing to live up to its end.

And all this and thirty five cents will get you a phone call maybe .
The war exist it is reality and must be taken to its conclusion. If you like to protest the actions taken vote for someone else and vote for a congressman or senator that think as you do . In reality the war must be taken to a conclusion that will not create worse condition than existed before the war .
Please do not neglect the fact that the majority of democrats both supported the war and have funded it . Also do not neglect the fact that 80 percent or more of your countrymen supported the war and that our soldiers are fighting and dying to bring it to a successfull conclusion .
The rest is all bullshit .

Yeah. I suppose it's bullshit that 80 percent of the country suported the war, only because they believed Bush's lies. And now that they have been proven to be lies, and we're stuck there, and there were no rose petals thrown at our feet...now, only about 30 percent support it. And I'm betting 98 percent of those 30 percent who still support it do NOT have THEIR OWN KIDS over there fighting and dying.

If Kofi Annan's spineless mewling is any indication of that, get ready to have Mr. Bolton turn the UN into the Arm of the Western World.

Hey lets go back a bit in history here, Kofi Annan was YOUR man. Every nation wanted to re-elect Butros-Butros Gali, but nope the Americans would not hear of it. They bullied everyone into electing Kofi Annan.. so don't bitch to us cause YOUR guy didn't work out for you.

well most must think that the war is going good since the american army is a voluntary army.

Voluntary, my ass! What about all the stop-loss orders, and refusing to let people leave when their time is up??
And if it's so voluntary, then let's see what happens if you suddenly, in the middle of your tour...decide you don't want to be in the military anymore. they call that desertion, and there are penalties for that.
Volunteer, my ass!
Incidentally, most who are over in Iraq, they signed up and volunteered TO COME TO THE AID OF AMERICANS IN TIMES OF NATURAL DISASTERS, LIKE HURRICANE KATRINA!! They never imagined they would actually get shipped off to Iraq, instead!

Only a fool would not want a strong and reliable working United Nations . One actually capable of preventing genocide and wars such as the current war in Iraq . The fact is the genocide in the former Yugoslavia did happen along with the conituing genocide in Africa . All on the watch of the United Nations . A strong United Nations would have forced Saddam AND the United States and other coalition nations into compliance and there would have been NO war in Iraq unless Saddam started one again .

Voluntary, my ass! What about all the stop-loss orders, and refusing to let people leave when their time is up??
And if it's so voluntary, then let's see what happens if you suddenly, in the middle of your tour...decide you don't want to be in the military anymore. they call that desertion, and there are penalties for that.
Volunteer, my ass!

While I agree with your first two points. However, if you make an agreement (which is a voluntary agreement, at least at first, although the practice of forcing 18 year old men to register for selective service is questionable), then break that agreement, there are consequences. It wouldn't matter if you were in the army or in the business world, there are consequences to abandoning your job and it's duties. It's a voluntary comittment, but it's still a comittment and, while there is some question about the tactics used to get youth to sign on, no one is forcing them to sign in the first place.


Incidentally, most who are over in Iraq, they signed up and volunteered TO COME TO THE AID OF AMERICANS IN TIMES OF NATURAL DISASTERS, LIKE HURRICANE KATRINA!! They never imagined they would actually get shipped off to Iraq, instead!

Understandable, but again, the purpose of the armed forces is the defence of our country. Frequently, this involves armed conflict. To join a branch of the military and then want out because someone is shooting at you seems, at least, ingenuous to me. I feel for people finding themselves in that situation and I think they should certainly be allowed to leave when their commitment is up. However, there must be an element of personal responsibility here. They enlisted. They knew there was the possiblity of armed conflict. They even knew it was theortically possible that their tour of duty might be extended (although this is certainly a debateable point).

Yeah. I suppose it's bullshit that 80 percent of the country suported the war, only because they believed Bush's lies. And now that they have been proven to be lies, and we're stuck there, and there were no rose petals thrown at our feet...now, only about 30 percent support it. And I'm betting 98 percent of those 30 percent who still support it do NOT have THEIR OWN KIDS over there fighting and dying.
It might also be worth pointing out in connection with this nonsense:
The war exist it is reality and must be taken to its conclusion. In reality the war must be taken to a conclusion that will not create worse condition than existed before the war. Also do not neglect the fact that 80 percent or more of your countrymen supported the war and that our soldiers are fighting and dying to bring it to a successfull conclusion.
that the last time the States managed to bring a war to a succesful conclusion was in 1946. Every attempt America has made at invading another country since then has been a farce and a fiasco that has achieved pretty close to fuck all, besides helping to foster the distaste for the military that Etrusca finds so repellant during the fiasco in Vietnam.

Voluntary, my ass! What about all the stop-loss orders, and refusing to let people leave when their time is up??
And if it's so voluntary, then let's see what happens if you suddenly, in the middle of your tour...decide you don't want to be in the military anymore. they call that desertion, and there are penalties for that.
Volunteer, my ass!
Incidentally, most who are over in Iraq, they signed up and volunteered TO COME TO THE AID OF AMERICANS IN TIMES OF NATURAL DISASTERS, LIKE HURRICANE KATRINA!! They never imagined they would actually get shipped off to Iraq, instead!

Lets see your on a roll ! Your are wrong though ! Everything that the volunteer soldiers have been through was a possibility they knew of or should have know ..when they.... volunteered ..... for the military .
And by .. volunteering for the military you aggree to follow the orders of your commander in cheif and your superior officers . You aggree to stay until your discharge . If you leave you invoke penaltys that you aggreed to subject yourself to when you.... volunteered .
Anyone who joins the National Guard or the reserves does so knowing he will be called to action at a time of war . Hard to see how they could never " imagine " being a soldier by becomming a soldier...its so very hard .
So that post is in need of further review . I mean that in the most respectfull manner .

Understandable, but again, the purpose of the armed forces is the defence of our country. Frequently, this involves armed conflict. To join a branch of the military and then want out because someone is shooting at you seems, at least, ingenuous to me. I feel for people finding themselves in that situation and I think they should certainly be allowed to leave when their commitment is up. However, there must be an element of personal responsibility here. They enlisted. They knew there was the possiblity of armed conflict. They even knew it was theortically possible that their tour of duty might be extended (although this is certainly a debateable point).
Just out of interest, what the devil is this business in Iraq actually doing to defend your country? There's a much bigger al queda presence there now than there was under Hussein.

It might also be worth pointing out in connection with this nonsense:

that the last time the States managed to bring a war to a succesful conclusion was in 1946. Every attempt America has made at invading another country since then has been a farce and a fiasco that has achieved pretty close to fuck all, besides helping to foster the distaste for the military that Etrusca finds so repellant during the fiasco in Vietnam.


That would be Vietnam , Grenada , Panama , Iraq the first time and Iraq the second time and Afghanistan . None a farce and with the exception of Vietnam the stated goals were achieved successfully and feelings for the military in the United States are almost as high as they were durring WW2 .
So WTF are you raving about ? :rolleyes:

That would be Vietnam , Grenada , Panama , Iraq the first time and Iraq the second time and Afghanistan . None a farce and with the exception of Vietnam the stated goals were achieved successfully and feelings for the military in the United States are almost as high as they were durring WW2 .
So WTF are you raving about ? :rolleyes:
Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama, obviously.
Oh, and the bombing of Tripoli, and putting religious nutcases in power in Afghanistan.
You're also forgetting about Bosnia.

Just out of interest, what the devil is this business in Iraq actually doing to defend your country? There's a much bigger al queda presence there now than there was under Hussein.

Hell if I know, I've never maintained that it was. The fact remains that an enlisted individual understands the potentiality for armed conflict during the period of their enlistment.

Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama, obviously.

The communist government and Cuban advisors and military no longer have a presence in Grenada . It was a success although I do feel it was a farce .

Panama really needed to be rid of Norieaga and so did the United states. Very successfull and not a farce .

Hell if I know, I've never maintained that it was. The fact remains that an enlisted individual understands the potentiality for armed conflict during the period of their enlistment.
A perfectly reasonable point, but you did open up with this line about the armed forces having a duty to defend their country, which this ridiculous nonsense isn't doing. If anything, it's doing precisely the opposite.

That would be Vietnam ,the stated goals were achieved successfully

No they weren't, you lost the war in Vietnam. What revisionist history book told you otherwise?

The communist government and Cuban advisors and military no longer have a presence in Grenada . It was a success although I do feel it was a farce .
Compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, possibly, though it's noticable that Fidel Castro is still running Cuba. Wasn't that business supposed to bring about a situation where it would be possible to remove him?

Panama really needed to be rid of Norieaga and so did the United states. Very successfull and not a farce .
Of course, Panama wasn't actually declared as a war, was it?
So how about Bosnia and Afghanistan? Take a stab at justifying those two.

A perfectly reasonable point, but you did open up with this line about the armed forces having a duty to defend their country, which this ridiculous nonsense isn't doing. If anything, it's doing precisely the opposite.

I don't think I've ever asserted anything other than that, unless you wish to so interpret my belief that to haul up stakes and leave immediately would create an even bigger problem than the one that exists at the moment.

My point regarding defense of a country (or however it's correctly spelled), is that when a person voluntarily joins the armed forces, they agree to act in defense of the U.S. as determined by their superiors. To suddenly decide that one has a moral issue with a conflict simply because one is being shot at is ingenuous. Even still, I would work to help those people get out of the military if that is their choice, but I would also remind them that actions have consequences and legal prosecution may be one of those consequences so if all they're trying to do is go back on a committment, they might want to reconsider.

It's rather hard to argue that the UN is an effective organization.

It has presided over most of the massacres of the last 50 years, or stood by and watched them happen, or facilitated them.

It has legitimized war.

I feel that it's going to be overhauled, but I have the feeling that the overhaul is going to be forced on it by the United States.

If Kofi Annan's spineless mewling is any indication of that, get ready to have Mr. Bolton turn the UN into the Arm of the Western World.


While I agree to some extent, what you fail to acknowledge is that the UN is NOT some seperate body with a mind of it's own. It is a collection of representatives of member states each of whom brings issues to the table and from whence agreements are made.

So when you bitch "where was the UN when such and such was going on", what you need to do is ask "where were OUR representatives when such-and-such was going on?" Because, as with Congress, if no-one sponsors a bill then an issue falls by the wayside.

And when you are a permanenet member of the Security Council, then your responsibilities are increased as to the level of input and awareness that you must expect of your leaders.

So when you ask "where was the UN in Rwanda?", you also need to ask "why did Clinton's administration specifically tell their representative not to use the word 'genocide' in relation to this horror'.


If you can't answer the second one then you won't answer the first either.


And let us not forget that the countervailing vetos given to the East and West after WWII allowed each of the US and Russia to veto each other's resolutions - effectively playing tit-for-tat and letting people die all over the world rather than put aside ideology in favour of humanity once in a while.

It is an ineffective organization for one main reason: it was designed to be that way by its architects.

Lets see your on a roll ! Your entire post is bullshit ! Everything that the volunteer soldiers have been through was a possibility they knew of or should have know ..when they.... volunteered ..... for the military .
And by .. volunteering for the military you aggree to follow the orders of your commander in cheif and your superior officers . You aggree to stay until your discharge . If you leave you invoke penaltys that you aggreed to subject yourself to when you.... volunteered .
Anyone who joins the National Guard or the reserves does so knowing he will be called to action at a time of war . Hard to see how they could never " imagine " being a soldier by becomming a soldier...its so very hard .
So that post is Bullshit moreshit piled high and deep . I mean that in the most respectfull manner .

Well, if that is how you define respect, then I neither need, or want...your respect. So why don't you take your "respect" and stick it where the sun don't shine? Because if THAT was in any way respectful, then I'm a fucking monkey's auntie!

No they weren't, you lost the war in Vietnam. What revisionist history book told you otherwise?

No we didn't, because there never was a war in Vietnam.

(Yes, I'm well aware it's a bullshit argument, but I wanted to be the first to reduce this to pure semantics. :) )

No we didn't, because there never was a war in Vietnam.

(Yes, I'm well aware it's a bullshit argument, but I wanted to be the first to reduce this to pure semantics. :) )

Hehe *giggles*

No we didn't, because there never was a war in Vietnam.

(Yes, I'm well aware it's a bullshit argument, but I wanted to be the first to reduce this to pure semantics. :) )
I call taking the next step.

War is all in your mind.

In the grand scope of things, the Vietnam conflict was merely a battle during the Cold War, which we won.

No they weren't, you lost the war in Vietnam. What revisionist history book told you otherwise?

What revisionary book taught you how to read ?

with the exception of Vietnam the stated goals were achieved successfully

I don't think I've ever asserted anything other than that, unless you wish to so interpret my belief that to haul up stakes and leave immediately would create an even bigger problem than the one that exists at the moment.

My point regarding defense of a country (or however it's correctly spelled), is that when a person voluntarily joins the armed forces, they agree to act in defense of the U.S. as determined by their superiors. To suddenly decide that one has a moral issue with a conflict simply because one is being shot at is ingenuous. Even still, I would work to help those people get out of the military if that is their choice, but I would also remind them that actions have consequences and legal prosecution may be one of those consequences so if all they're trying to do is go back on a committment, they might want to reconsider.
One could in fact argue, that the manner in which Bush has started this war was deeply inconstitutional, and many of his other acts while in power have established him as one of the threats to the constitutional government that your army is technically there to do away with. That's where I was coming from. You're entirely right that finding a military campaign unacceptable because it might involve getting shot is a fairly unrealistic attitude.
As for leaving Iraq causing a worse mess than exists at the moment, America has shown a long history of doing this: Korea and Afghanistan in particular spring to mind.

In the grand scope of things, the Vietnam conflict was merely a battle during the Cold War, which we won.

Uhh no you didn't and the war in Vietnam was a civil war. That was it , that was all. To which you had no business getting involved in. However you achieved nothing except to prove how corrupt many administrations were over the course of the war.. as was clearly shown in The Pentagon Papers (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/)

I call taking the next step.

War is all in your mind.

Damnit! I never expected my ace to be trumped so soon!

*returns to creepy castle lair to plot next move

In the grand scope of things, the Vietnam conflict was merely a battle during the Cold War, which we won.
That's nearly as big a cop out as David Duke claiming that he used to be a racist, but isn't any more.

Compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, possibly, though it's noticable that Fidel Castro is still running Cuba. Wasn't that business supposed to bring about a situation where it would be possible to remove him?


Of course, Panama wasn't actually declared as a war, was it?
So how about Bosnia and Afghanistan? Take a stab at justifying those two.

Bosnia was not a war in any sense . From the US standpoint at any rate .
You did say invaded correct ? You did not say declared war .
And what about Afghanistan ? How did the vote turn out ?

Damnit! I never expected my ace to be trumped so soon!

*returns to creepy castle lair to plot next move
*wishes he had a creepy castle lair*

*retreats to high-tech hidden laboratory*

It's like the Bat Cave with better lighting!

Bosnia was not a war in any sense . From the US standpoint at any rate .
You did say invaded correct ? You did not say declared war .
And what about Afghanistan ? How did the vote turn out ?
I was thinking of the fact that American advisors put the mujahadeen in power in the first place, rather than the country being bombed flat a couple of years ago: sorry, I should have been more clear about that.

One could in fact argue, that the manner in which Bush has started this war was deeply inconstitutional, and many of his other acts while in power have established him as one of the threats to the constitutional government that your army is technically there to do away with. That's where I was coming from.

Yes, I figured that's where you were going and it's a good point. Indeed, in another thread running around here, I lay out exactly why I feel Bush has broken international law. Although we didn't specifically cover Constitutional law in that thread, it can certainly be argued that he violated at least the spirit if not the letter.

Still, though, as a sworn pacifist, it is always disturbing to me (fairly or no) to hear about this variation of the "death-bed change-up confession". I don't think someone should be forced to serve in the armed forces if it is against their religious or moral convictions, particularly not in a country that prides itself on being a bastion of freedom and liberty. However, I also don't think one can do away with personal responsibility in order to save one's own neck.

What revisionary book taught you how to read ?

Sorry if I misread you. I thought you were saying that Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama were all wars that you successfully achieved your goals. Which is simply not true.

1) Vietnam you lost (or pulled out if you prefer)

2) Grenada, and Panama were not wars on the part of the USA they we coups headed by the CIA.

That's nearly as big a cop out as David Duke claiming that he used to be a racist, but isn't any more.

Wow, now THAT name is a blast from the past. An unpleasant, foul-smelling blast, but a blast nonetheless.

"It's the right of the American people to peacefully express their views. And that's what you're seeing here in Washington, D.C.,"

She's exercising her constitutional rights. Let's just let it go at that.

One could in fact argue, that the manner in which Bush has started this war was deeply inconstitutional, and many of his other acts while in power have established him as one of the threats to the constitutional government that your army is technically there to do away with. That's where I was coming from. You're entirely right that finding a military campaign unacceptable because it might involve getting shot is a fairly unrealistic attitude.
As for leaving Iraq causing a worse mess than exists at the moment, America has shown a long history of doing this: Korea and Afghanistan in particular spring to mind.

Bush did not start this war . Bush Congress and the American people started the war. The election while the war was in progress further validated the war . But you are right it could be argued that it is unconstitutional just as it will be argued that it is. If it is ever brought to the Supreme court to be judged we will find out. But be carefull for what you wish for . When a formal declaration of war is declared the president is given near dictatorial powers , that is the reason congress has not formaly declared war since WW2.
Would you want to give those powers to any president never mind the curren one ?

You really have to explain why South Korea having become a great nation and Afghanistan becoming a democracy are in any way whatsoever " worse " off, than being conquered and enslaved by a North Korean Dictator who would have the whole country living under similar conditions as he has the north . Or Afghanistan ...under the Taliban .

I can safetly say you are very wrong almost ludicrously so . Well strike the almost . I would still like to see how you attempt to explain that statement .

Bush did not start this war . Bush Congress and the American people started the war. The election while the war was in progress further validated the war .

Okay, well, not to rehash, but Bush and Co were gunning for the war from the get go and used post-9/11 fear as a springboard to get their way. They did it by presenting a case for war that is now known to be both misleading and incorrect. The question of Constitutional legality would rest on exactly who knew what and when and as that question will never be answered fully, there will never be any charges leveled. However, I am confident that when history books talk about this, they will not attribute the beginning of hostilities to Bush, Congress and the American people, but firmly at the feet of Bush. Besides, if the war is such a success, then he should be eager to claim sole responsibility for it, no?

Furthermore, the election does less to validate the war and more to suggest that Americans when involved in a conflict don't like change. If you'll remember the tenor of 2004, no one was voting "for" anyone, but everyone was sure as hell voting "against" someone else. Regardless, Bush's narrow victory does not translate to either a sanction of the Iraq war or a huge mandate to lead as we can see from the whole drug policy fiasco.

Well, if that is how you define respect, then I neither need, or want...your respect. So why don't you take your "respect" and stick it where the sun don't shine? Because if THAT was in any way respectful, then I'm a fucking monkey's auntie!


You know something you are right. I'll go change it . Done its edited .

Just to set the record straight: the US did not "lose" in Vietnam. In every engagement between US forces and forces of North Vietnam, the US was the clear victor. What actually happened was that the "limited war" concept fostered by lackluster politicians, the constant drumbeat of media "bad news stories," incessant propagandizing by so-called "protestors," the ever-present casualty figures emphasised by the daily news, and the perception fostered in the general public by all of the preceeding that the war was "unwinnable" led to untimely action by the US to "Vietnamize" the war. The South Vietnamese were by no means ready to assume full responsibility for their own defense, and the Vietenamese military imploded under relentless assault.

NOTE: I was there. I saw it happnen. So I don't want to hear any rationalizations about it.

Just to set the record straight: the US did not "lose" in Vietnam. In every engagement between US forces and forces of North Vietnam, the US was the clear victor. What actually happened was that the "limited war" concept fostered by lackluster politicians, the constant drumbeat of media "bad news stories," incessant propagandizing by so-called "protestors," the ever-present casualty figures emphasised by the daily news, and the perception fostered in the general public by all of the preceeding that the war was "unwinnable" led to untimely action by the US to "Vietnamize" the war. The South Vietnamese were by no means ready to assume full responsibility for their own defense, and the Vietenamese military imploded under relentless assault.

NOTE: I was there. I saw it happnen. So I don't want to hear any rationalizations about it.
So if the United States were to leave Iraq right now and bring all the troops home, you wouldn't have lost Iraq. Rather, the coalition government military would just implode under relentless assault?

So if the United States were to leave Iraq right now and bring all the troops home, you wouldn't have lost Iraq. Rather, the coalition government military would just implode under relentless assault?
Not precisely, but close.

Would it be fair to say that while the United States did not lose the Vietnam war military, their efforts maintain democracy in the region ended in dismal failure?

Just to set the record straight: the US did not "lose" in Vietnam. In every engagement between US forces and forces of North Vietnam, the US was the clear victor. What actually happened was that the "limited war" concept fostered by lackluster politicians, the constant drumbeat of media "bad news stories," incessant propagandizing by so-called "protestors," the ever-present casualty figures emphasised by the daily news, and the perception fostered in the general public by all of the preceeding that the war was "unwinnable" led to untimely action by the US to "Vietnamize" the war. The South Vietnamese were by no means ready to assume full responsibility for their own defense, and the Vietenamese military imploded under relentless assault.

NOTE: I was there. I saw it happnen. So I don't want to hear any rationalizations about it.

You are right but our spinless and clueless politicions by adopting the " limited " war strategy did not acheive their goals and did in effect allow North Vietnam to achieve its goals. And by the " Perception " of a majority of those involved this is considered a loss by the United States. If not a loss then its a failure in its immediate goals. Its arguable that by fighting in Vietnam as part of the cold war we were able to , " win " that much bigger and more important struggle of ideology .

Would it be fair to say that while the United States did not lose the Vietnam war military, their efforts maintain democracy in the region ended in dismal failure?
Not entirely. Although Vietnam fell to the North and their allies, Thialand was preserved as a constitutional monarchy, and Cambodia may yet become a true democracy. I don't have enough information on the other Souteast Asian countries to run down the entire list.

Okay, I've had my fill with all this. Eutrusca -

What would you have us do? Break up the protests with the army? Ban peaceful assembly? Ban free speech? Just a little something to make Saddam proud, and have Hitler turn over in his grave? Perhaps we could have our own Tiennamen Square? Tanks crushing peaceful protestors whom disagree with the 'old guard?' Or would you prefer something more intimate, like a Kent State?

You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. You like Democracy? Well I sure hope you do, considering your stance on the Iraq war. Well if you support Democracy, then you support the rights that come with that, including Free Speech, and Peaceful Assembly(yes, even if it gets to the point of ppl bitching at/protesting the soldiers). Either you support those rights or you do not. Supporting them situationally is tantamount to not supporting them at all. After all, it's not a 'right' if we can ban it when someone says/protests something we don't like.

You are more logical than this. You may not like what she says, but your commentary suggests we should do something to stop her, which is precisely what we CANNOT do. After all(to look at this from your point of view), which is the bigger victory for the enemy - a questionable morale boost from anti-war protestors, or the knowledge that however indirectly, the 'terrorists' destroyed the Bill of Rights? I thought so.

Hear Hear

The problem with that argument is that you think with a now-type of attitued.

back then they were considered dishonorable by whites and some blacks(bcause those blacks thought only harm would come from it) because rosa and martin king upsetted their staue quo(blacks lower then whites).

Maybe s/he is speaking from an "I hope we've learned" attitude. We look back and see that the people who were considered dishonorable were actually heroes and hope that we have learned not to mistake modern heroes for dishonorable people. All evidence points to the contrary, though.

I don't think Ms. Sheehan is dishonorable. I also don't think she's a hero. I think she's a misguided, grieving woman. I think her protest does more harm to the anti-war protest than good, but I still believe she has the right to do it. I just choose to completely ignore her.

I just choose to completely ignore her.
As I will do from this point on.

If it does, can I go ahead and accept that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians

Absolutely not. That nutcase doesn't speak for any Christian I know. He sure as heck doesn't speak for me! :D

I will not be baited. Go "protest" to someone who gives a shit.
Strange how anytime someone comes up with a point you can't counter easily you accuse them of flaming, or accuse them of attacking people instead of points.

No. They weren't bulding their following on the dead bodies of their own sons. Nor were they building their reputation as protestors by slandering and endangering the very people who protect their right to protest.
MLK was against the Vietnam War.

Absolutely not. That nutcase doesn't speak for any Christian I know. He sure as heck doesn't speak for me! :D

And yet some people find Bin Ladin to be the perfect spokesman for the Muslim community. It's kind of a double standard that's sad.

And yet some people find Bin Ladin {sic} to be the perfect spokesman for the Muslim community. It's kind of a double standard that's sad.

I'm firmly not in this group, but I see it everyday and it infuriates me. A "Christian" "friend" of mine said to me that we should "round up all the Muslims and send them to the moon. Then we'll be safe." I looked at her, realized she was serious, argued with her until I was blue in the face and haven't spoken to her since. That was June.

("Christian" is in quotes because no Christian I know could honestly say those words, and no friend of mine could ever believe them.)

Strange how anytime someone comes up with a point you can't counter easily you accuse them of flaming, or accuse them of attacking people instead of points.

MLK was against the Vietnam War.
Yes, I know he was.

Name one point I have backed away from. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Fortunately, I'm usually not. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyric
Well, if that is how you define respect, then I neither need, or want...your respect. So why don't you take your "respect" and stick it where the sun don't shine? Because if THAT was in any way respectful, then I'm a fucking monkey's auntie!


You know something you are right. I'll go change it . Done its edited .

Then I retract the "stick it" remark. I still disagree with you.

Hear Hear

*bows*

...

*wonders quietly whether Eutrusca got my point*

I think Sheehan is a moron, her kid joined of his own free will, and followed his orders of his own free will, as a recruit for the army, I think all she is doing is dishonoring her childs death, not helping anyone.

Ya but the liberals won't see that. It's a fact (pun intended).

I just feel that nearly everything about Cindy Sheehan is manufatured. It is neither real, nor spontanious, and doesn't have the abillity to hold or inspire the publics intrest.

I'm firmly not in this group, but I see it everyday and it infuriates me. A "Christian" "friend" of mine said to me that we should "round up all the Muslims and send them to the moon. Then we'll be safe." I looked at her, realized she was serious, argued with her until I was blue in the face and haven't spoken to her since. That was June.

("Christian" is in quotes because no Christian I know could honestly say those words, and no friend of mine could ever believe them.)

Ugh, my dad's like that. Not only does he say that about Muslims; he says that about the entire Middle East.

Again: Ugh.

I'm firmly not in this group, but I see it everyday and it infuriates me. A "Christian" "friend" of mine said to me that we should "round up all the Muslims and send them to the moon. Then we'll be safe." I looked at her, realized she was serious, argued with her until I was blue in the face and haven't spoken to her since. That was June.

("Christian" is in quotes because no Christian I know could honestly say those words, and no friend of mine could ever believe them.)



I HATE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!!!! AND JERRID FROM THE SUBWAY COMMERCIALS!!! I HATE THAT GUY!!!!!!! ;)

The fact that you feel the war is illegal has absolutely no bearing what so ever on its legality. It is in fact legal until judged otherwise .
Even your own Richard Perle disagrees with you on legality:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Kofi Annan, Blix, and tons of International lawyers disagree with you on legality.

as to it being an "immoral" war . Well can a war that is fought to remove a Despot and aggressor who is proven to be irrational in his decisions on who and how he attacks other nations be judged immoral ?
Regime change wasn't what Bush went to war on. It was WMD, or did you forget that? The Attorney General of the UK stated that regime change would not be a legal basis for war:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.

After this dictator is removed he is replaced with a government chosen democraticly by the people of the country he formerly ruled . And this process is helped along and encouraged by the very power that removed him . The same power that is helping to rebuild the economy and the infastructure and is training the army and the police and equiping it and that once the country is able to secure itself will withdraw its troops ..can these actions also be considered immoral ?
Yes these actions are immoral. A sovereign nation was invaded, which is a clear violation of the UN Charter. How many Iraqis have died to date so that the US may bestow "freedom" upon them? And of course to honour their liberators, the Iraqis are embracing a constitution based on western fundamental principles? NOT.

And of course, there is the ongoing conflict with the insurgents, terrorists, and general distrust of Americans in the Muslim world. This invasion has resulted in more terrorism not less, and that is truely ironic. American were incensed over 911 and rightly so, but how did the US respond? They responded by bombing the crap out of a country that played no part in 911. Tens of thousands of innocents have paid the price for Bush's miscalculations, and it is not over yet.

Sheehan has every right to be pissed off. Americans are dying for Bush's war. A war that didn't need to be fought. And although you may not care about what the world outside the US thinks, it does matter.

Yes this war is illegal and immoral. It is plain as day to see that.

You are of course free to have the opinion that this particular war is somehow immoral ...But I feel free and secure in telling you that you are mistaken and somewhat naive in thinking that this particular war is " immoral" . You may want to reserve that term for a more proper use .
The naivete is yours to wear. I have used the word immoral in exactly the proper context and manner. The war in Iraq has been an exercize in futility. Thousands have died, and thousands more will die, and yet the world is no safer now than it was 4 years ago. Yes, immoral is the correct word.

Even your own Richard Perle disagrees with you on legality:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Kofi Annan, Blix, and tons of International lawyers disagree with you on legality.


Regime change wasn't what Bush went to war on. It was WMD, or did you forget that? The Attorney General of the UK stated that regime change would not be a legal basis for war:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.


Yes these actions are immoral. A sovereign nation was invaded, which is a clear violation of the UN Charter. How many Iraqis have died to date so that the US may bestow "freedom" upon them? And of course to honour their liberators, the Iraqis are embracing a constitution based on western fundamental principles? NOT.

And of course, there is the ongoing conflict with the insurgents, terrorists, and general distrust of Americans in the Muslim world. This invasion has resulted in more terrorism not less, and that is truely ironic. American were incensed over 911 and rightly so, but how did the US respond? They responded by bombing the crap out of a country that played no part in 911. Tens of thousands of innocents have paid the price for Bush's miscalculations, and it is not over yet.

Sheehan has every right to be pissed off. Americans are dying for Bush's war. A war that didn't need to be fought. And although you may not care about what the world outside the US thinks, it does matter.

Yes this war is illegal and immoral. It is plain as day to see that.


The naivete is yours to wear. I have used the word immoral in exactly the proper context and manner. The war in Iraq has been an exercize in futility. Thousands have died, and thousands more will die, and yet the world is no safer now than it was 4 years ago. Yes, immoral is the correct word.

They are entitled to their opinions just as you are entitled to yours. put all of your opinions together and it still doesnt change anything not one fact will have been altered. Saddam is in a cell and Iraq is struggling to create a stable and democratic government.
You can support their efforts or continue to cry about something you can do nothing about . The world will continue to move on . One day history will record the results .

They are entitled to their opinions just as you are entitled to yours. put all of your opinions together and it still doesnt change anything not one fact will have been altered. Saddam is in a cell and Iraq is struggling to create a stable and democratic government.
You can support their efforts or continue to cry about something you can do nothing about . The world will continue to move on . One day history will record the results .

And by refusing to learn from the lessons of the past, the world will keep on making the same mistakes over and over again. Until one too many mistakes are made. Mistakes from which there is no coming back from. Mistakes which everyone will pay for.

A permit to demonstrate? I hope to Buddha this isn't the case. :mad:

That's bullshit.

i've never heard of anyone applying for a permit and not getting one.....the technical reason you need a permit, i think, is so that the government knows you're harmless and can

1) protect you from violent counter-protests
2) just ignore what you actually have to say.

i mean, if you're the white house security force and you see tens of thousands of people assembling in a mass demonstration outside of the white house.....are you thinking that they're there peacefully or are you wondering if the bastille is getting stormed? if you let them know why you're there and who you are before you start protesting then this lightens their concern substantially and prevents any kind of violent crackdown.

it could be an abortion/anti-abortion rally going on, for example. in this case, the state would want to put some police in charge to stop the rally/counter-rally from turning into a major conflict and spilling over into riots.

of course, nowadays, with a major media outlet screaming at you at every turn it would be hard to not know why there are tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets, but, you know...

remember that the government only lets you protest in the first place because you are of no threat to them that way. walking around with signs is less worrysome to the state than walking around with guns is.....and way less effective.

.....which is why i think this woman is ultimately wasting her time. if she wants to make any kind of difference, she should either run for office or start a militia to take down her corrupt and inept government and replace it with one that abides by the original concepts on which the country was founded: greed, racism and exploitation.

err...wait.

Fairly speaking, unless you have lost your child, someone that grew inside of you for nine months and that you cradled in your arms at birth- you do not have a right to call her those names. You are just attacking her person noe, having crossed over from her beliefs or stance. She is a human, and lost her baby boy. It doesn't matter wether you agree with her- it is the worst possible feeling on this earth :(

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Agree

...

When I'm wrong, I admit it. Fortunately, I'm usually not. :D


*almost chokes and spits M&M's all over his desk*