NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: 2,000 dead sounds like ... and is ... a lot. Yet placing this number in the context of history gives insight, not only into the situation in Iraq, but to what our ancesters endured. I've posted the entire article here for those of you who have the wisdom and patience to read it.


2,000 Dead, in Context (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/opinion/27hanson.html?th&emc=th)


By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
Published: October 27, 2005
Valletta, Malta

AS the aggregate number of American military fatalities in Iraq has crept up over the past 13 months - from 1,000 to 1,500 dead, and now to 2,000 - public support for the war has commensurately declined. With the nightly ghoulish news of improvised explosives and suicide bombers, Americans perhaps do not appreciate that the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the effort to establish a democratic government in Iraq have been accomplished at relatively moderate cost - two-thirds of the civilian fatalities incurred four years ago on the first day of the war against terrorism.

Comparative historical arguments, too, are not much welcome in making sense of the tragic military deaths - any more than citing the tens of thousands Americans who perish in traffic accidents each year. And few care to hear that the penultimate battles of a war are often the costliest - like the terrible summer of 1864 that nearly ruined the Army of the Potomac and almost ushered in a Copperhead government eager to stop at any cost the Civil War, without either ending slavery or restoring the Union. The battle for Okinawa was an abject bloodbath that took more than 50,000 American casualties, yet that campaign officially ended less than six weeks before Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender.

Compared with Iraq, America lost almost 17 times more dead in Korea, and 29 times more again in Vietnam - in neither case defeating our enemies nor establishing democracy in a communist north.

Contemporary critics understandably lament our fourth year of war since Sept. 11 in terms of not achieving a victory like World War II in a similar stretch of time. But that is to forget the horrendous nature of such comparison when we remember that America lost 400,000 dead overseas at a time when the country was about half its present size.

There is a variety of explanations why the carnage of history seems to bring today's public little comfort or perspective about the comparatively moderate costs of Iraq. First, Americans, like most democratic people, can endure fatalities if they believe they come in the pursuit of victory, during a war against an aggressor with a definite beginning and end. That's why most polls found that about three-quarters of the American people approved of the invasion upon the fall of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad in April 2003.

The public's anguish for the fewer than 150 lost during that campaign was counterbalanced by the apparently easy victory and the visible signs of enemy capitulation. But between the first 200 fatalities and the 2,000th, a third of those favoring the war changed their minds, now writing off Iraq as a mistake. Perhaps we could summarize this radical transformation as, "I was for my easy removal of Saddam, but not for your bungled and costly postwar reconstruction."

Part of the explanation is that, like all wars against amorphous insurgencies, the current struggle requires almost constant explanation by the government to show how and why troops are fighting in a necessary cause - and for the nation's long-term security interests. Unless official spokesmen can continually connect the terrible sacrifices of our youth with the need to establish a consensual government in Iraq that might help to end the old pathology of the Middle East, in which autocracies spawn parasitic anti-Western terrorists, then the TV screen's images of blown-up American troops become the dominant narrative. The Bush administration, of course, did not help itself by having put forth weapons of mass destruction as the primary reason for the invasion - when the Senate, in bipartisan fashion, had previously authorized the war on a score of other sensible writs.

Yet castigating a sitting president for incurring such losses in even a victorious or worthy cause is hardly new. World War I and its aftermath destroyed Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Roosevelt's closest election was his fourth, just as the war was turning for the better in 1944 (a far better fate, remember, than his coalition partner Winston Churchill, who was thrown out of office before the final victory that he had done so much to ensure). Harry Truman wisely did not seek re-election in 1952 in the mess of Korea. Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson and crippled Richard Nixon. Even George H. W. Bush found no lasting thanks for his miraculous victory in the 1991 Gulf war, while Bill Clinton's decision to tamper Serbian aggression - a victory obtained without the loss of a single American life - gave him no stored political capital when impeachment neared.

Americans are not afraid of wars, and usually win them, but our nature is not militaristic. Generals may become heroes despite the loss of life, but the presidents rarely find much appreciation even in victory.

Television and the global news media have changed the perception of combat fatalities as well. CNN would have shown a very different Iwo Jima - bodies rotting on the beach, and probably no coverage of the flag-raising from Mount Suribachi. It is conventional wisdom now to praise the amazing accomplishment of June 6, 1944. But a few ex tempore editorial comments from Geraldo Rivera or Ted Koppel, reporting live from the bloody hedgerows where the Allied advance stalled not far from the D-Day beaches - a situation rife with intelligence failures, poor equipment and complete surprise at German tactics - might have forced a public outcry to withdraw the forces from the Normandy "debacle" before it became a "quagmire."

Someone - perhaps Gens. Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower or George Marshall himself - would have been fired as responsible for sending hundred of poorly protected armored vehicles down the narrow wooded lanes of the Bocage to be torched by well-concealed Germans. Subsequent press conferences over underarmored Sherman tanks would have made the present furor over Humvees in Iraq seem minor.

We are also now a different, much more demanding people. Americans have become mostly suburban, at great distance from the bloodletting and routine mayhem on the farms of our ancestors. We feel cheated if we don't die at 85 in quiet sleep rather than, as in the past, at 50 right on the job. Popular culture demands that we look 40 when we are 60, and with a pill we can transform fatal diseases into the status of mere runny noses. (Admittedly, this same degree of medical technology has kept the death total in Iraq a far smaller percentage of overall casualties than it would have been in any earlier war.)

Our technology is supposed to conquer time and space, and make the nearly impossible seem boringly routine. Ejecting a half-million or so Iraqis from Kuwait halfway around the world in 1991, or stopping Slobodan Milosevic from killing civilians is not just conceivable, but can and should be done almost instantly with few or no American lives lost. With such expectations of perfection, any death becomes a near national catastrophe for nearly 300 million in a way the disasters at the battles of Antietam and Tarawa were for earlier, fewer and poorer Americans.

If our enemies similarly believed in the obsolescence of war that so heartlessly has taken 2,000 of our best young men and women, then we could find solace in our growing intolerance of any battlefield losses. But until the nature of man himself changes, there will be wars that take our youth, and we will be increasingly vexed to explain why we should let them.

Victor Davis Hanson is the author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian Wars."

Its odd quite how the casualties pile up, no? It didn't seem to be that bloody.

Strange, how you invade another country and its inhabitants fight you.
Strikes me where this comes from.

The article does miss the point that there's also been over 15 000 casualties, around 8 000 of them so severe (as in loss-of-limb severe) that the soldiers can't return to active duty. Most of those 8 000 would likely to have been deaths in previous wars, but thanks to increased body & vehicle armour protection, along with better training and medical advances they were fortunate enough to survive.
So making comparisons is a wee bit asinine, really.

The article does miss the point that there's also been over 15 000 casualties, around 8 000 of them so severe (as in loss-of-limb severe) that the soldiers can't return to active duty. Most of those 8 000 would likely to have been deaths in previous wars, but thanks to increased body & vehicle armour protection, along with better training and medical advances they were fortunate enough to survive.
So making comparisons is a wee bit asinine, really.

Are we certain that some of those 8000 weren't deaths? In any other war, a casualty was any injury so severe that it took a man off the field. In this war a "casualty" is only those where a man dies on the spot. If he get's hit with an RPG and manages to crawl to safety and dies in the infermary the Bush administration is not calling it a casualty. It would not be out of character for our complicit media to only report these "casualties" as the war dead and the rest as service people who died of natural causes. Just supposition on my part though.

Strange, how you invade another country and its inhabitants fight you.
Strikes me where this comes from.

It's 'cause they don't love their country. Oh, ya, ...and they hate freedom. ;)

It's 'cause they don't love their country. Oh, ya, ...and they hate freedom. ;)

Damn svages;)

Considering how much their trying to stop coverage on US troop deaths, and ignoring Iraqi ones, that is a possibility. Is there a listing of the numbers of people who actually died there and not as casualties? I figure it would be somewhat higher. But you'd have to prune out stuff like falling down stairs and breaking your neck or disease related issues i.e. stroke. Bit of a mess really.

But between the first 200 fatalities and the 2,000th, a third of those favoring the war changed their minds, now writing off Iraq as a mistake. Perhaps we could summarize this radical transformation as, "I was for my easy removal of Saddam, but not for your bungled and costly postwar reconstruction."

I get so pissed off when I read stuff like this, and I see it more and more.

I get so pissed off when I read stuff like this, and I see it more and more.

Why?

To be honest, Saddam was a more stable leader than the current administration, and he maintained peace. Ties with Osama? Perhaps not.

I'm not sure 'contextualising' deaths is so great an idea.

"The Iraq War; not as many dead as in Vietnam"

Is that really the best you can say about it?

How sad that some people only consider the deaths of American soldiers as worthy of counting.

As others have pointed out, there are far more deaths and tragedies involved in the US invasion of the middle east than just the soldiers.

Do you realize that a great deal of the work being carried out on behalf of the US is being done by MERCENARIES, whose deaths are not required to be counted in the official statistics?

What about all the Iraqis and Afghanis that have died. Don't they count?

What about the soldiers and peacekeepers from countries other than the US, you know, that whole Coalition of the Willing? Don't THEY have dead soldiers? (and if not, then was it really ever a coalition to begin with?)

I get sick of hearing people talk like Americans are the only humans on earth, and the rest of the people might as well be cattle.

Why?

To be honest, Saddam was a more stable leader than the current administration, and he maintained peace. Ties with Osama? Perhaps not.

I get pissed off because the present situation is by far the most likely result of our actions. I could have sat down with each one of those idiots and explained what would happen three years ago.

And the thing is, these people wouldn't have cared, they were full of militaristic 9/11 fervor, and would have supported war regardless of what I said. And now that we are exactly where we thought we would be at this point, they now say it is a mistake.

Those irrational idiots are going to cost us more than 9/11 terrorists by the time we recover from their mistakes.

Next time I am talking to someone who says that they changed their minds and now think the war was a mistake, I hope a fly lands on their face, because I will punch them right in the goddamn nose. When their nose starts gushing, I'm going to say "You know, that may have been a mistake," and walk off.

Why?

To be honest, Saddam was a more stable leader than the current administration, and he maintained peace. Ties with Osama? Perhaps not.
Peace? Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:

Ah, the irony. Did anyone DARE say "But only 5000 people died, that's not that many" (and get away with it unscathed) after the WTC attacks? Y'know, you could put those in context too.

Peace?Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:

You will recall that at the time, he was a hero to the USA for standing against Iranian fundamentalism, right?

Not that I think he was a man of peace, but still...

Peace? Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:

I am aware of quite how deplorable Saddam was, howvever, in comparison to the present situation we encounter in Iraq, I merely belive his retention of power would have been preferable. The death rate per day in Iraq, under the "enlightened" coalition leadership, is far in excess of that in Saddam's reign.

Peace? Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:


Yep, and if you do your research, Saddam gased those Kurds not only with the Blessing of the US, but with chemicals from the US and its allies.

There's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, whilst the Kurds are being gased. The US knew it then, and allowed it to happen because the Iraqi government was friendly to the US.

Funny, around the time that Saddam threatened to switch to the Euro standard for his oil (which would have had serious consequences on the value of the American dollar) the US decided they didn't like him anymore.

Well, this site is pretty comprehensive in the amount of fatalities so far:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

According to them (last updated 25/10/05) since the war began (19/03/03), there's been:
2001 American Deaths
198 Other Coalition Troops
242 US Military Deaths - Afghanistan
276 'Civilian' coalition deaths, which if you click on the link (http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx) and look at their occupation, 111 of them were 'security contractors' (read: Mercenaries). Another 61 were truck drivers, which hardly makes me want to rush over there to take up a job driving.

Oh, and one other thing:
26732 Iraqi deaths at least since the war began. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Well, this site is pretty comprehensive in the amount of fatalities so far:
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
......(snip)....
Oh, and one other thing:
26732 Iraqi deaths at least since the war began. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


THank you, DH, for putting it into better perspective.

The article does miss the point that there's also been over 15 000 casualties, around 8 000 of them so severe (as in loss-of-limb severe) that the soldiers can't return to active duty. Most of those 8 000 would likely to have been deaths in previous wars, but thanks to increased body & vehicle armour protection, along with better training and medical advances they were fortunate enough to survive.
So making comparisons is a wee bit asinine, really.

Nope. Ever since the Vietnam War, there have been far more wounded than killed.

It's probably better to compare Vietnam (since most people who are against the war are already making the comparison).

As it is, the insurgency in Iraq is nowhere near as intense as the insurgency in Vietnam - the insurgents seem comparatively ineffective, especially in their ability to field forces in open combat.

And we would have to stay in Iraq for 55 years to get the same number of dead and wounded we had in Vietnam.

I am aware of quite how deplorable Saddam was, howvever, in comparison to the present situation we encounter in Iraq, I merely belive his retention of power would have been preferable. The death rate per day in Iraq, under the "enlightened" coalition leadership, is far in excess of that in Saddam's reign.
Proof of this please. Normally, I don't ask for proof on here since most of what people say on General is little more than opinion, but in this case I feel the allegation is severe and should be supported with statistics.

Proof of this please. Normally, I don't ask for proof on here since most of what people say on General is little more than opinion, but in this case I feel the allegation is severe and should be supported with statistics.
Why are you bothering asking for proof? Really what The blessed Chris said was pretty vacuous.

I also find it somewhat amusing that Eutrusca will round on anybody 'dishonouring dead soldiers', and then posts this article which essentially says the Iraqi war dead are meaningless.

How sad that some people only consider the deaths of American soldiers as worthy of counting.

As others have pointed out, there are far more deaths and tragedies involved in the US invasion of the middle east than just the soldiers.

Do you realize that a great deal of the work being carried out on behalf of the US is being done by MERCENARIES, whose deaths are not required to be counted in the official statistics?

What about all the Iraqis and Afghanis that have died. Don't they count?

What about the soldiers and peacekeepers from countries other than the US, you know, that whole Coalition of the Willing? Don't THEY have dead soldiers? (and if not, then was it really ever a coalition to begin with?)

I get sick of hearing people talk like Americans are the only humans on earth, and the rest of the people might as well be cattle.

Well the australian troops are mostly special forces... and blend into the background/natives - on operations most of the time and hardly ever seen.... so bombs never get them... i think we have had 5? 6? casulties since afganistan started, at least 2 by US friendly fire...

what the hell is your problem everyone? 2000 dead?! thats nothing. OH and the 3000 dead in the WTC is pretty much the number of babies i slaughter to feast on annually. stop bickering

Ah, the irony. Did anyone DARE say "But only 5000 people died, that's not that many" (and get away with it unscathed) after the WTC attacks? Y'know, you could put those in context too.

yeah, i think kanabia pretty much destroyed you all right there

Originally Posted by Kanabia
Ah, the irony. Did anyone DARE say "But only 5000 people died, that's not that many" (and get away with it unscathed) after the WTC attacks? Y'know, you could put those in context too.

um... actually yes some did...
a number of people at my uni... generally just to get the wackos who wanted to invade everywhere to piss off but they did. And being that there were a number of people saying it - and in public - they generally "got away with it"...

oh and we are talking caucasians here... so none of the muslim stereotyping was available...

Ah, the irony. Did anyone DARE say "But only 5000 people died, that's not that many" (and get away with it unscathed) after the WTC attacks? Y'know, you could put those in context too.
I did. But them Im not an American.

Nope. Ever since the Vietnam War, there have been far more wounded than killed.

It's probably better to compare Vietnam (since most people who are against the war are already making the comparison).

As it is, the insurgency in Iraq is nowhere near as intense as the insurgency in Vietnam - the insurgents seem comparatively ineffective, especially in their ability to field forces in open combat.

And we would have to stay in Iraq for 55 years to get the same number of dead and wounded we had in Vietnam.
So you're saying that military and medical technology and training hasn't advanced in 40 years?

58,169 were killed and 304,000 wounded out of 2.59 million who served.
So far in Iraq/Afghanistan, 1.1 million have done a tour of duty, with 2000+ killed and 15 000 wounded. Which admittedly does make this war look better in comparison.

However, the Pentagon has changed the rules of how it classifies 'wounded'.
The Pentagon says 15,000 G.I.'s have been wounded. Half of those, given the severity of their wounds, could not return to duty. Yet The U.S. Transportation Command says that by the end of August 2005, it had evacuated 23,576 G.I.'s from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses. Stars and Stripes reports that the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, treated its 25,000th patient from Iraq or Afghanistan in July. Why the discrepancy?
The Department of Defense says it excludes sick and injured soldiers from casualty statistics to fit "the common understanding of the average newspaper reader". However, it's a strange twist of logic that if a Humvee rolls over in Baghdad, the Pentagon will count a soldier killed in the wreck as a casualty, while a soldier paralyzed in the same wreck is not included in public casualty reports.

Which means that when you work it out according to the numbers who served, the death rate is far lower than Vietnam (about 1/10th) but the casualty rate is much closer (around 1/5). Which supports my premise that today's advanced technology, training, armour and medicine has helped significantly to keep the bodycount down.

And of course, there's the length of time the Iraq war has been going, compared to the Vietnam war. For example, it wasn't until 1965 - 6 years after the first US military deaths occurred in Vietnam - was the 2000th US casualty recorded.

So you can't just compare simple casualty numbers. It's not that easy to do. which makes doing so pretty pointless and comes across as just apologetic.

Well the australian troops are mostly special forces... and blend into the background/natives - on operations most of the time and hardly ever seen.... so bombs never get them... i think we have had 5? 6? casulties since afganistan started, at least 2 by US friendly fire...
Good ol' US 'friendly fire'. If they were really serious about stopping the insurgents the US should all join the other side. They'd soon wipe out the lot within a week or two with 'friendly fire'.

How sad that some people only consider the deaths of American soldiers as worthy of counting.

As others have pointed out, there are far more deaths and tragedies involved in the US invasion of the middle east than just the soldiers.

Do you realize that a great deal of the work being carried out on behalf of the US is being done by MERCENARIES, whose deaths are not required to be counted in the official statistics?

What about all the Iraqis and Afghanis that have died. Don't they count?

What about the soldiers and peacekeepers from countries other than the US, you know, that whole Coalition of the Willing? Don't THEY have dead soldiers? (and if not, then was it really ever a coalition to begin with?)

I get sick of hearing people talk like Americans are the only humans on earth, and the rest of the people might as well be cattle.

*applauds*

You beat me to it.

I get pissed off because the present situation is by far the most likely result of our actions. I could have sat down with each one of those idiots and explained what would happen three years ago.

And the thing is, these people wouldn't have cared, they were full of militaristic 9/11 fervor, and would have supported war regardless of what I said. And now that we are exactly where we thought we would be at this point, they now say it is a mistake.

Those irrational idiots are going to cost us more than 9/11 terrorists by the time we recover from their mistakes.

Next time I am talking to someone who says that they changed their minds and now think the war was a mistake, I hope a fly lands on their face, because I will punch them right in the goddamn nose. When their nose starts gushing, I'm going to say "You know, that may have been a mistake," and walk off.

Very well said. Though I never thought I'd be agreeing with you on anything. It's depressing how many people supported the war out of pure, unthinking, irrational, propaganda-fed gut reaction, and are startled to realise, somewhat belatedly, that they were wrong to do so.

So you can't just compare simple casualty numbers. It's not that easy to do. which makes doing so pretty pointless and comes across as just apologetic.

So that begs the question - why is 2000 such an important figure? Why are the media calling it "a milestone".

What I like to look at is the following:

1. Since 1991, without the US doing anything except providing a no fly zone, the Kurds managed to form their own stable government.
2. The Shiites, I'm sure, could form their own stable government without us. Or merge with Iran.
3. The Sunnis hate us. Gee, they would like to take the whole country back over again, but they no longer have a large army, and they are not the owners of most of the oil wealth - so they lose. Even if we left now, they could not effectively attack either of the other two. And I'm sure that they would love to form their own government.

So, if doing things without occupying a place worked so well in Step 1, why can't we just do the same now?

What I think we should do is remove our troops from the Kurdish and Shiite areas and tell the Sunnis that if they want us to leave promptly, all they have to do is knock off blowing things up for 30 days.

Good ol' US 'friendly fire'. If they were really serious about stopping the insurgents the US should all join the other side. They'd soon wipe out the lot within a week or two with 'friendly fire'.
You don't think you're overstating the case just a tad??? :rolleyes:

I also find it somewhat amusing that Eutrusca will round on anybody 'dishonouring dead soldiers', and then posts this article which essentially says the Iraqi war dead are meaningless.
You are "amused" by the strangest things. :(

Perhaps you should actually, you know ... like, read the damned thing! :headbang:

You don't think you're overstating the case just a tad??? :rolleyes:

Well there was that incident in the first gulf war with that british battalion? of tanks... destroyed by US forces...

and at least 1/3 of the Australian casulties in the current mess are "blue on blue" from the US...

so... maybe - but not definantly..

Peace? Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:

All with US support.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html


The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."<29> In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation.

[...]

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.<30> In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.<31> That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.<32> The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism<33> (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)<34> and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.<35> In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.<36>

[...]

U.S. actions in pursuit of the first track showed quite clearly that Washington's opposition to the Khomeini regime had nothing to do with its lack of democracy, for the groups that the U.S. backed against Khomeini were often supporters of the previous dictator, the Shah.

Starting in 1982 the CIA provided $100,000 a month to a group in Paris called the Front for the Liberation of Iran, headed by Ali Amini, who had presided over the reversion of Iranian oil to foreign control after the CIA-backed coup in 1953.<59> The U.S. also provided support to two Iranian paramilitary groups based in Turkey, one of them headed by General Bahram Aryana, the Shah's army chief, who had close ties to Shahpur Bakhtiar, the Shah's last prime minister.<60>

In 1980, under the Carter administration, the United States began clandestine radio broadcasts into Iran from Egypt, at a cost of some $20-30,000 per month. The broadcasts called for Khomeini's overthrow and urged support for Bakhtiar.<61> Other broadcasts contained anti-Soviet material.<62> In 1986, the CIA pirated Iran's national television network frequency to transmit an eleven minute address by the Shah's son over Iranian TV. "I will return," Reza Pahlavi vowed.<63>

Simultaneous with these activities, the U.S. pursued its second track: trying to establish ties with the Iranian mullahs based on the interest they shared with Washington in combating the left. The U.S. purpose, Reagan announced in November 1986, after the Iran-Contra scandal blew open, was "to find an avenue to get Iran back where it once was and that is in the family of democratic nations" -- a good trick, as Mansour Farhang has commented, since pre-1979 Iran was hardly democratic.<64>

[...]

The main tool by which U.S. policy makers sought to secure their position in Iran in 1985 and 1986 was secretly providing arms and intelligence information. As a proclaimed neutral in the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was not supposed to supply weapons to either side. Nevertheless, U.S. allies kept the combatants well-stocked.<74> Israel transferred vast quantities of U.S.-origin weapons to Iran;<75> to what extent U.S. permission for these shipments was obtained (as required by U.S. law) is not known, but surely the U.S. had enough leverage to prevent the transfers if it had wanted to.

In 1984, because of Iranian battlefield victories and the growing U.S.-Iraqi ties, Washington launched "Operation Staunch," an effort to dry up Iran's sources of arms by pressuring U.S. allies to stop supplying Teheran.<76> U.S. secret arms sales to Iran in 1985 and 1986 thus not only violated U.S. neutrality, but undercut as well what the U.S. was trying to get everyone else to do. The cynical would note that Operation Staunch made the U.S. arms transfers to Iran that much more valuable.

When this arms dealing became known, the Reagan administration was faced with a major scandal on several counts. Proceeds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras in violation of the Boland Amendment. And though the administration's professed uncompromising stand on terrorism was always hypocritical, given its sponsorship of terrorism in Nicaragua and elsewhere, being caught trading "arms-for-hostages" was particularly embarrassing.

[...]

At the same time that the U.S. was giving Teheran weapons that one CIA analyst believed could affect the military balance<88> and passing on intelligence that the Tower Commission deemed of "potentially major significance,"<89> it was also providing Iraq with intelligence information, some misleading or incomplete.<90> In 1986, the CIA established a direct Washington-to-Baghdad link to provide the Iraqis with faster intelligence from U.S. satellites.<91> Simultaneously, Casey was urging Iraqi officials to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets.<92> Asked what the logic was of aiding both sides in a bloody war, a former official replied, "You had to have been there."<93>

Washington's effort to enhance its position with both sides came apart at the end of 1986 when one faction in the Iranian government leaked the story of the U.S. arms dealing. Now the Reagan administration was in the unenviable position of having alienated the Iranians and panicked all the Arabs who concluded that the U.S. valued Iran's friendship over theirs. To salvage the U.S. position with at least one side, Washington now had to tilt -- and tilt heavily -- toward Iraq.

[...]

It was Iraq that started the tanker war in the Gulf proper in 1981, and that continued these attacks into 1984 without a parallel Iranian response at sea. Two months after Iraq stepped up the pace and scope of its attacks in March 1984, Iran finally began responding.<111> Iraqi attacks, however, outnumbered those by Iran until after the United States announced its reflagging.<112> The U.S. Navy protected the reflagged vessels, and in April 1988 extended its protection to any neutral vessels coming under Iranian attack.<113> In practice, this meant that Iraq could strike at Iranian vessels with impunity, with the U.S. Navy preventing retaliation by Teheran.

Washington justified its policy by noting that Iraq only attacked Iranian ships, while Iran targeted the ships of neutrals: Kuwait, in particular. This was a dubious legal argument on two counts. First, Kuwait was a neutral engaged in rather unneutral behavior. Among other things, it opened its ports to deliveries of war material that were then transported over land to Iraq.<114> Second, Iraq too hit neutral ships, even Saudi Arabian ships -- when they called on Iran.<115> Iraq declared certain Iranian waters a "war exclusion zone," but as an international law expert has noted, Iraq's "method of enforcement has closely resembled German methods" in World War II, and "under any analysis the Iraqi exclusion zone cannot be justified." The "attacks on neutral merchant vessels by both sides must be condemned as violations of international law."<116> There was thus no legal justification for the U.S. to take Iraq's side in the tanker war.

[...]

The provocative U.S. naval deployments in the Gulf took a heavy toll on innocent civilians. In November 1987, a U.S. ship fired its machine guns at night at a boat believed to be an Iranian speedboat with hostile intent; it was in fact a fishing boat from the United Arab Emirates. One person was killed and three were wounded.<125> The most serious incident was the shooting down by the U.S. cruiser _Vicennes_ of an Iranian civil airliner, killing all 290 people aboard.

[...]

In late 1986 the Iran-Contra scandal broke, forcing the U.S. to go all-out in its support for Iraq in order to preserve some influence among the Arab states jolted by the evidence of Washington's double-dealing. In May 1987, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy met with Saddam Hussein and promised him that the U.S. would lead an effort at the UN for a mandatory arms embargo of Iran; a resolution would be drawn up calling on both sides to cease fire and withdraw, and imposing an embargo on whoever didn't comply, presumably Iran. The U.S. drafted such a resolution, but the non-permanent members of the Security Council altered it to include the formation of an impartial commission to investigate the origins of the war, as Iran had been insisting, and to eliminate the mandatory sanctions. On July 20, 1987 the revised document was passed unanimously as Security Council Resolution 598.<149>

Iraq promptly accepted 598, while Iran said it would accept the cease-fire and withdrawal of forces if the impartial commission were set up first. The U.S. and Iraq both rejected Iran's position, asserting that Iran had no right to select one provision out of many in the resolution and impose that as a first step.<150>

[...]

The Iran-Iraq war was not a conflict between good and evil. But though both regimes were repugnant, it was the people of the two countries who served as the cannon fodder, and thus ending the war as soon as possible was a humane imperative. Instead of lending its good offices to mediation efforts and diplomacy, however, Washington maneuvered for advantage, trying to gain vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and to undercut the left. The United States provided intelligence information, bogus and real, to both sides, provided arms to one side, funded paramilitary exile groups, sought military bases, and sent in the U.S. Navy -- and all the while Iranians and Iraqis died.


Really, Eutrusca, these facts are well-known. Are you honestly saying you weren't aware of it?

So that begs the question - why is 2000 such an important figure? Why are the media calling it "a milestone".
Why indeed? My guess is because it's a nice round number and it's a slow week news-wise.

You don't think you're overstating the case just a tad??? :rolleyes:
You're right. It'll take a month, not a week. Sorry 'bout that.

Well there was that incident in the first gulf war with that british battalion? of tanks... destroyed by US forces...

and at least 1/3 of the Australian casulties in the current mess are "blue on blue" from the US...

so... maybe - but not definantly..

Not an entire battalion. In the 1991 Gulf War, a US A-10 Thunderbolt fired on a British armored convoy, killing nine servicemen.

um... actually yes some did...
a number of people at my uni... generally just to get the wackos who wanted to invade everywhere to piss off but they did. And being that there were a number of people saying it - and in public - they generally "got away with it"...

oh and we are talking caucasians here... so none of the muslim stereotyping was available...

I did. But them Im not an American.

Exactly, Prae (And I imagine it would have been different if you were a US citizen, Armacor). Even so, I bet you were treated like a right prick for pointing that out. When I said nobody would care half as much if it happened in Russia or China, I know I was. Even though it's true.

My point is this, really. The very same people who were quick to lash out when someone commented on the comparatively small death toll of the WTC are now the ones belittling the death of 2000 US soldiers in Iraq.

Before someone comments on my personal stance and attempts to pick me for hypocrisy - Comparatively, no, I don't think that the US death toll is that severe. Yet. It still pays to think about the 2000 families that are grieving, though.

I am, however, especially concerned about the Iraqi toll, and even more so about the combined amount of all nationalities that have had citizens and soldiers killed there.

ah ... thought there was a tank on tank one as well...

and the questionmark after battalion was cause i wasnt sure of the size :-)

The time for a military coup has never been greater.

I get pissed off because the present situation is by far the most likely result of our actions. I could have sat down with each one of those idiots and explained what would happen three years ago.

And the thing is, these people wouldn't have cared, they were full of militaristic 9/11 fervor, and would have supported war regardless of what I said. And now that we are exactly where we thought we would be at this point, they now say it is a mistake.

Those irrational idiots are going to cost us more than 9/11 terrorists by the time we recover from their mistakes.

Next time I am talking to someone who says that they changed their minds and now think the war was a mistake, I hope a fly lands on their face, because I will punch them right in the goddamn nose. When their nose starts gushing, I'm going to say "You know, that may have been a mistake," and walk off.
It's like you're the voice inside my head. The one I prefer to listen to rather than all those huh-duh dumbasses for whom reality is a boring subject.

The time for a military coup has never been greater.

lol. I thought you were a libertarian.

lol. I thought you were a libertarian.

I am. I was thinking of one of those bloodless coups where the military ousts the government, steps down, and hands power over to civilians (preferrably libertarian ones).

Exactly, Prae (And I imagine it would have been different if you were a US citizen, Armacor). Even so, I bet you were treated like a right prick for pointing that out. When I said nobody would care half as much if it happened in Russia or China, I know I was. Even though it's true.



Well i couldnt stop laughing at some people, after they claimed that it wasnt that high (as i did) and then turned around straight away and claimed special consideration at uni for emotional distress...

I am. I was thinking of one of those bloodless coups where the military ousts the government, steps down, and hands power over to civilians (preferrably libertarian ones).

Oh, those. They're ever so common. Maybe you could invite Pinochet over to give the mighty new government some advice? :p

Well i couldnt stop laughing at some people, after they claimed that it wasnt that high (as i did) and then turned around straight away and claime special consideration at uni for emotional distress...

Heh.

I was in high school at the time, and I remember people coming to school crying. Crying? How many of them knew someone that was in the tower or on one of those planes? Or even New York? How many of them cry for the thousands killed in wars and children that starve to death every day? Zero.

They were all allowed to go home early, and take the next day off too. I mean, respect for those that died is perfectly fine, but when people take advantage of an event that happened on the other side of the world for their own personal interest, that's a load of crap.

I don't for a moment think any of them felt genuine grief. 'Course, I can't KNOW that, but if they did, then it was pretty misplaced. Like I said, they don't cry for the thousands of others that die violent or preventable deaths every day...

ah ... thought there was a tank on tank one as well...

and the questionmark after battalion was cause i wasnt sure of the size :-)

The A-10 attack on the British was the US on British friendly fire incident in the first Gulf War. I don't recall any tank on tank for US - British.

The US had several US on US "own goals". Apache helicopters fired on US Bradleys, etc.

Thats even worse... at least the british ones were a different shape to "The Good Ol' US of A" ones.


Kanabia - ditto to the crying scene... i dont think anyone at uni did much work that day... of course many of us didnt/dont do much work any day...

Oh, those. They're ever so common. Maybe you could invite Pinochet over to give the mighty new government some advice? :p

Pinochet doesn't count. He staged a coup and put a military junta in power. I don't want that. I want libertarian civilians in power.

Very well said. Though I never thought I'd be agreeing with you on anything.

We would agree much more if I didn't dedicate 90% of my posts to capitalism.

It's depressing how many people supported the war out of pure, unthinking, irrational, propaganda-fed gut reaction, and are startled to realise, somewhat belatedly, that they were wrong to do so.

What can you do? People are stupid.

That's why communism sucks

Its odd quite how the casualties pile up, no? It didn't seem to be that bloody.

It isn't. Compared to the casualties suffered in 'Nam, Korea, World War II, World War I, and the Civil War (yes I left off the Revolutionary War, 1812, Mexican War, and the Spanish American War) it isn't that bloody.

It isn't. Compared to the casualties suffered in 'Nam, Korea, World War II, World War I, and the Civil War (yes I left off the Revolutionary War, 1812, Mexican War, and the Spanish American War) it isn't that bloody.

No, but its protracted, seemingly without purpose, and not popularly supported. It escalates the severity of the losses, and it doesn't help most of them are losses incurred subsequent to the removal of Sddam.

No, but its protracted, seemingly without purpose, and not popularly supported. It escalates the severity of the losses, and it doesn't help most of them are losses incurred subsequent to the removal of Sddam.

No, ever since Vietnam, the people don't want to see anything bloody. They haven't learned the lessons of the past that you must fight from time to time to take out people who will do you harm if given a chance.

I'm just glad I'm not one of those people who would run at the first sign of trouble. I'm a firm believer that once you start to mix it up, you stay till the end.

How to handle a war: GET THE DAMN GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT AND LEAVE IT TO THE GENERALS.

No, ever since Vietnam, the people don't want to see anything bloody. They haven't learned the lessons of the past that you must fight from time to time to take out people who will do you harm if given a chance.

Coudent agree with you more there mate. war is shit and terrible, but it is nessesary sometimes. 2000 isnt much at all, saddam is gone and sent china and russia a message of "the british and USA military are good, dont try anything"


And a question, how many of you here are actually in the military? any military? Im an officer myself if anyone was wondering.

Why?

To be honest, Saddam was a more stable leader than the current administration, and he maintained peace. Ties with Osama? Perhaps not.

This is utterly an ignorant statement. You can't be serious that you actually believe Saddam is a better choice than to try and establish a democratically elected government that doesnt butcher its own people. Where are your priorities?

Personally, I am more concerned with the over 300 billion dollars spent on the war so far. The US armed forces is entirely voluntary. The day those men and women enlisted, they sold their lives to the state, no matter the reason they singed up. The money wasted on the war will have much farther reaching consequences than the deaths of two thousand nationalists.

Next time I am talking to someone who says that they changed their minds and now think the war was a mistake, I hope a fly lands on their face, because I will punch them right in the goddamn nose. When their nose starts gushing, I'm going to say "You know, that may have been a mistake," and walk off.

[Standing Ovation]

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. It's beyond me how someone could have thought the Iraq War was a good idea. It's something I'll only understand when I reach senility.

Personally, I am more concerned with the over 300 billion dollars spent on the war so far. The US armed forces is entirely voluntary. The day those men and women enlisted, they sold their lives to the state, no matter the reason they singed up. The money wasted on the war will have much farther reaching consequences than the deaths of two thousand nationalists.

So your saying that we shouldn't spend money to reconstruct Iraq?

[Standing Ovation]

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. It's beyond me how someone could have thought the Iraq War was a good idea. It's something I'll only understand when I reach senility.

The Iraq War was the proper thing to do, both morally and legally.

So your saying that we shouldn't spend money to reconstruct Iraq?
We shouldn’t have gone in the first place, but why should we spend money to rebuild it?

2000 is only seen as a milestone probably only Betup by the Media.

WWI New Zealand sent 120000 men to fight in Europe,Egypt/Palestine Galipoli and Samoa over 50% Casulties were suffered.
That was the highest Casulty Rate and we were the best.
WWII was similiar only Russia had a higher Casulty rate.

2000 Dead is probably lower than the Hourly Rate at Waterloo.

2000 is only seen as a milestone probably only Betup by the Media.

WWI New Zealand sent 120000 men to fight in Europe,Egypt/Palestine Galipoli and Samoa over 50% Casulties were suffered.
That was the highest Casulty Rate and we were the best.
Being the best at not dieing is very important in life.

The Iraq War was the proper thing to do, both morally and legally.
nah... the war in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do, both morally and legally.

The Iraq war is just "WTF?".

BTW, 2000 killed is very very significant and disgusting. They got killed in a very pathetic war for a very pathetic reason.

We shouldn’t have gone in the first place, but why should we spend money to rebuild it?
Because you broke it?

Because you broke it?
I didn’t break anything. Why should I have to pay for it?

Being the best at not dieing is very important in life.
Sometimes a Sacrifice must br made.
Lest We Forget.

We shouldn’t have gone in the first place, but why should we spend money to rebuild it?

Because it is customary to rebuild what you broke. :D

nah... the war in Afghanistan was the proper thing to do, both morally and legally.

Won't argue there.

The Iraq war is just "WTF?".

17 Violations of UN Resolutions. Violation of the Cease-fire (automatic start of war here). Mass slaughter of those that disagree with him.

BTW, 2000 killed is very very significant and disgusting. They got killed in a very pathetic war for a very pathetic reason.

It isn't that significant. The Revolutionary war saw a couple more thousand dead than this war.

ah ... thought there was a tank on tank one as well...

and the questionmark after battalion was cause i wasnt sure of the size :-)

I'm pretty sure I saw CNN footage of techs pulling US Depleted Uranium Sabots out of a Scorpion tank they'd accidentally fired on. I think that's the incident you mean.

The other situation was when they accidentally bombed a convoy of Warrior (is that what they were? Warriors?) Troop transporters. I seem to recall the error cited there was that the A-10 crew mistook the markings.

I didn’t break anything. Why should I have to pay for it?
Sure walk away know after you have spilt the milk.

The Iraq War was the proper thing to do, both morally and legally.

Yes, ok. I'm really done wasting my time arguing with your side of the fence over this. Life is too short, though not as short for me as for a couple thousand of our boys.

Sure walk away know after you have spilt the milk.
I didn’t spill the milk. A bunch of career politician took other people’s money and spilt the milk.

I didn’t spill the milk. A bunch of career politician took other people’s money and spilt the milk.
Well the mess is there and someone needs to clean it up.

Well the mess is there and someone needs to clean it up.
Why?

Another context to put it in (and I'm sorry if someone mentioned it already)

Soviet Union invades Afghanistan:
That's 15 years and 15,000 Soviet Casualties. So a thousand dead a year.

This Iraq Business has been going on for about 2 and a half years now, and we're at 2000.

That's for the killed. I believe as far as wounded is concerned, the US is performing worse than the Soviets did in Afghanistan at this point.

Two thousand dead. 2,000. A two and three zeros.

So the logic behind Bush's quest to save Americans from being killed by terrorists...is to increase the amount of American deaths from terrorism since 9/11 by 66% to about 5,000? 3,000 deaths weren't good enough then?

17 Violations of UN Resolutions. Violation of the Cease-fire (automatic start of war here). Mass slaughter of those that disagree with him.

I say fuck the UN resolutions, the UN didn't act on them, so they obviously didn't matter, would you disagree?

Where was the violation of the cease fire that started this war?

It isn't that significant. The Revolutionary war saw a couple more thousand dead than this war.

Good, the argument that we can loose two thousand soldiers because we have lost more than that before. When the number reaches 20,000 are you going to use the same argument.

Yes, ok. I'm really done wasting my time arguing with your side of the fence over this. Life is too short, though not as short for me as for a couple thousand of our boys.

If you think 2000 is alot, what about 400,000 in world war ii? 55,000 in Vietnam? 600,000 in the civil war.

I'm sick and tired of the god damn media trying to blow things out of proportion. In war, this is nothing new. Our country has become to sensitized for a major, prolonged war.

I say fuck the UN resolutions, the UN didn't act on them, so they obviously didn't matter, would you disagree?

I will say they were a waste of time since the UN was to chicken to actually enforce them.

Where was the violation of the cease fire that started this war?

When he didn't comply with the cease-fire agreement.

Good, the argument that we can loose two thousand soldiers because we have lost more than that before. When the number reaches 20,000 are you going to use the same argument.

Once in war, you fight it till you win. What would you say if this media was around during oh say... World War II and broadcasting pictures like we've seen in Iraq, do you think the people would stomach losing 100,000 people per year?

If you think 2000 is alot, what about 400,000 in world war ii? 55,000 in Vietnam? 600,000 in the civil war.
And while we're at it...you don't have a right to complain in the first place!
400,000...600,000? Don't make me laugh. Do you want to know how many were lost by Russia? Or China? Or Japan, or Germany or Britain or pretty much any other country?

If we're going to simply compare numbers, than America can really trash its various memorial ceremonies, cuz the effort wouldn't be worth it.

Do you want to know how many were lost by Russia?
Actually, that would be because of poor leadership.

"WE WILL NOT RETREAT! YOU RETREAT, YOU GET SHOT!"

I mean, c'mon...

Why?
Because you do'nt go about breaking into peoples places break their stuff and then go oh you dont have what we wanted.

And while we're at it...you don't have a right to complain in the first place!
400,000...600,000? Don't make me laugh. Do you want to know how many were lost by Russia? Or China? Or Japan, or Germany or Britain or pretty much any other country?

If we're going to simply compare numbers, than America can really trash its various memorial ceremonies, cuz the effort wouldn't be worth it.

I already know the numbers from World War II. You also have to remember that nearly all of our deaths are military. I was comparing military deaths only and nothing more. Russians lost far to many in World War II due to incompetence. The Chinese numbers are inconclusive and I doubt we'll ever get an accurate toll there.

And while we're at it...you don't have a right to complain in the first place!
400,000...600,000? Don't make me laugh. Do you want to know how many were lost by Russia? Or China? Or Japan, or Germany or Britain or pretty much any other country?

If we're going to simply compare numbers, than America can really trash its various memorial ceremonies, cuz the effort wouldn't be worth it.
Apart from the Wars America starts they always turn up late.

Italy WWI 600,00 troops and all for Trieste and a bit of Coastline.

I will say they were a waste of time since the UN was to chicken to actually enforce them.

So then don't bring up the UN resolutions. It is not our obligation to uphold UN resolutions if the UN doesn't want to uphold them.

When he didn't comply with the cease-fire agreement.

I gathered that. I am drunk so help me out here.

Once in war, you fight it till you win. What would you say if this media was around during oh say... World War II and broadcasting pictures like we've seen in Iraq, do you think the people would stomach losing 100,000 people per year?

Saddam's gone, they don't have WMDs, I thought we already won.

And we can cut this comparison shit out. Gulf War 2 to World War 2? C'mon.

I already know the numbers from World War II. You also have to remember that nearly all of our deaths are military. I was comparing military deaths only and nothing more. Russians lost far to many in World War II due to incompetence. The Chinese numbers are inconclusive and I doubt we'll ever get an accurate toll there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
This sounds about right.

Fact of the matter is that the US got away "easy" if you look at it in aggregate. And since it is quite obvious that Americans are happy to mourn their dead, pure numbers obviously don't matter. They always have to be out into context.

And as far as Russian casualties are concerned, that was the nature of the war. Had nothing to do with incompetent leadership, it was simply that this was the only thing they could do. They had their back against the wall.
And it is those numbers that leads most Germans to think of WWII primarily as the Eastern Front, with...well, not quite passing, but at least smaller mention of the West.

So then don't bring up the UN resolutions. It is not our obligation to uphold UN resolutions if the UN doesn't want to uphold them.

Actually, they are important and they are the reason why we are in there. If you can't wrap your mind around that then there truly is no hope.

I gathered that. I am drunk so help me out here.

Well there's a reason not to do so.

Saddam's gone, they don't have WMDs, I thought we already won.

WMDs weren't the only reason we are there and yes, we have won. Now we are rebuilding the country.

And we can cut this comparison shit out. Gulf War 2 to World War 2? C'mon.

I wasn't comparing the two wars. I was attacking the fact that 2000 people in a war, when compared to history, isn't that much.

Fact of the matter is that the US got away "easy" if you look at it in aggregate. And since it is quite obvious that Americans are happy to mourn their dead, pure numbers obviously don't matter. They always have to be out into context.

I'm taking nothing out of context. I'm a history nut. I wouldn't be a good historian if I took things out of context.

And as far as Russian casualties are concerned, that was the nature of the war. Had nothing to do with incompetent leadership, it was simply that this was the only thing they could do.

Actually, you are wrong here. If they actually had competent leadership, they wouldn't have suffered as many military casualties as they did. THanks to Stalin's purge of the military, he was left with incompetent leaders until late in the war where those that survived actually used the lessons learned and didn't make the same mistake twice.

They had their back against the wall.
And it is those numbers that leads most Germans to think of WWII primarily as the Eastern Front, with...well, not quite passing, but at least smaller mention of the West.

Someone needs to learn abit about pre-World War II Russian History. Especially the Military Purge.

I believe this thread has Godwined itself.

I'm taking nothing out of context. I'm a history nut. I wouldn't be a good historian if I took things out of context.
Then you should be aware that 400,000 in the context of the Global War in 1945 is something very different to 2000 today.

Someone needs to learn abit about pre-World War II Russian History. Especially the Military Purge.
I'm aware of it, but I don't think it changes much. It was their political arm which didn't prepare for war, and even the best generals can't help themselves if they are in a situation like the USSR was in 1941.
They can pretty much entirely thank the Winter (and the rain before it) for their survival that year - good generals or not.
They lacked proper equipment, they didn't have enough guns and their air force was shredded. Thank Stalin if you want, but better Generals wouldn't have changed that either.

Actually, they are important and they are the reason why we are in there. If you can't wrap your mind around that then there truly is no hope.

So we are in Iraq because we are upholding UN sanctions even though we didn't get UN approval?

WMDs weren't the only reason we are there and yes, we have won. Now we are rebuilding the country.

You said that you fight till you win, now you say we have won, but it is obvious we are still fighting.

I wasn't comparing the two wars. I was attacking the fact that 2000 people in a war, when compared to history, isn't that much.

Of course, because 2000 dead is meaningless when you look at the grand scheme of things. I mean its only a statistic.

Because you do'nt go about breaking into peoples places break their stuff and then go oh you dont have what we wanted.

What's worse than that is using Iraq's oil industry to rebuild from the war. That means they're paying to fix the shit we blew up. If I were an Iraqi that would seriously piss me off.

COMMENTARY: 2,000 dead sounds like ... and is ... a lot. Yet placing this number in the context of history gives insight, not only into the situation in Iraq, but to what our ancesters endured. I've posted the entire article here for those of you who have the wisdom and patience to read it.

Fuck "context" ... Eut ... run for President and end this stupid war. Bring America to some sense of "common decency" and "common sense".

Shit, man ... I'd vote for your right-leaning Libertarian ass.

Actually, they are important and they are the reason why we are in there. If you can't wrap your mind around that then there truly is no hope.

That's actually a very good point Vittos makes. If our position is that the UN as an organization is no longer relevant (Bush 2003), then why are we using its resolutions as justifications for our foreign policy?

Either it's relevant or it isn't. One can't pick and choose which parts of the UN are legitimate based on what's covenient to the day's debate.

COMMENTARY: 2,000 dead sounds like ... and is ... a lot. Yet placing this number in the context of history gives insight, not only into the situation in Iraq, but to what our ancesters endured. I've posted the entire article here for those of you who have the wisdom and patience to read it.

...


Victor Davis Hanson is the author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian Wars."

What makes the commentator so certain that the American people are tiring of the war because of the number of US dead?

Maybe they are just sick of a war based on lies?

Maybe they are sick of the fact that - while many US servicemen have died - many civilians have died also... in fact, more of the Iraqi people have died than US servicemen, by quite a margin.

Maybe it's the simple fact that people don't mind so much, dying for the defence of their own families... but sending our sons to the desert to die for political agenda is a little harder to swallow.

This author is too fond of his own agenda... he has decided that war should not be public domain, and that the average American bases ALL of his/her decisions on a bodycount.

He also ignores the deathtoll on the 'enemy' side. He considers 'American wars' successful... but Manifest Destiny or the Trail of Tears are examples of low-cost actions, in terms of the government backed force. Perhaps, modern day Americans are just better at perceiving their 'opponents' as human?

Maybe, that's not a failing?

Being the best at not dieing is very important in life.
Yes. I know. It's one of the things I do best.

I believe this thread has Godwined itself.
I believe you are correct. Come'on, folks ... the idea was to discuss how the article was or was not able to put 2,000 US military KIA into context.

Fuck "context" ... Eut ... run for President and end this stupid war. Bring America to some sense of "common decency" and "common sense".

Shit, man ... I'd vote for your right-leaning Libertarian ass.
LOL! Man ... thanks for the flowers, but you and me and everyone else who knows me understands that I would be a "one-term wonder." I have a reputation for making things happen, but sometimes I have to kick ass and take names to do so. Politicians don't much enjoy that! Hell ... hardly ANYone enjoys that! LOL!

"Libertarian?" ROFLMAO! Well, HARDLY! :p

I believe you are correct. Come'on, folks ... the idea was to discuss how the article was or was not able to put 2,000 US military KIA into context.
Well, I would think whether or not the 400,000 US casualties in WWII are in context (and what that context is) matters somewhat.

Anyways, I would think that Americans are willing to accept casualties if they can live with the goals of the operation.
In WWII it was generally believed that they were fighting for their lives, and besides, the planet was killing each other at ridiculous rates all over the place.

In Vietnam however, people saw the threat to their country much less, and so they were much quicker to question why so many would have to die.
I suspect the same is true today (because really, in the back of their heads most people don't think this Iraq thing really protects America from Terrorism).

And no one answered my idea about the Soviet War in Afghanistan - I would've thought that is one of the most accurate contexts you could put it in.

And no one answered my idea about the Soviet War in Afghanistan - I would've thought that is one of the most accurate contexts you could put it in.

Depends upon who you believe. The offical number is 15,000; which breaks down to about 1700 per year, slightly worse than the US in Iraq.

On the other hand, many people say that the official number is a gross underestimation - which has yet to be corrected - and the actuall figure is closer to 40,000-50,000. I tend to believe the latter, for a variety of reasons you would no doubt dismiss.

You are "amused" by the strangest things. :(

Perhaps you should actually, you know ... like, read the damned thing! :headbang:
Oh, I did.

Actually, they are important and they are the reason why we are in there. If you can't wrap your mind around that then there truly is no hope.

If UN resolutions are so important to you, why do you keep saying the UN is a heap of trash and it should be junked? The current ambassador to the UN by the US says quite a bit about what the administration thinks about it.

Ohhh, I get it. It's only important when you want it to rubber stamp your reasons. When it gets inconvenient, you trash it. Like Saddam.


WMDs weren't the only reason we are there and yes, we have won. Now we are rebuilding the country.

WMDs were the selling point however. If a man sold you a car promising you'd get 200 MPG and you only got 0 MPG, I think you'd have a long and very unhappy talk with him.


I wasn't comparing the two wars. I was attacking the fact that 2000 people in a war, when compared to history, isn't that much.

You're absolutely right. Compared to car deaths in America, 3000 people in a pair of collapsing towers is peanuts.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidentsFULL.html
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/tab1.html

Why should it matter then? It absolutely shouldn't. Lets all forget about it then hmmm?

I tend to believe the latter, for a variety of reasons you would no doubt dismiss.
Hey, you could at least give it a shot!
I wouldn't know why they wouldn't have made it official, given that the Soviet archives have been opened and all.

That's actually a very good point Vittos makes. If our position is that the UN as an organization is no longer relevant (Bush 2003), then why are we using its resolutions as justifications for our foreign policy?

Either it's relevant or it isn't. One can't pick and choose which parts of the UN are legitimate based on what's covenient to the day's debate.

Thank you, I was having trouble composing my thoughts clearly last night, and this is a much better post than I could muster.

Then you should be aware that 400,000 in the context of the Global War in 1945 is something very different to 2000 today.

And you must remember that if your going to say 2000 is a lot of deaths then you must put it into context of past wars. So now, I'm not taking it out of context when I compare these numbers to all the other wars we have fought.

I'm aware of it, but I don't think it changes much. It was their political arm which didn't prepare for war, and even the best generals can't help themselves if they are in a situation like the USSR was in 1941.

Actually, it really does change things around. If their best officers weren't purged, they would've been better off. However, Stalin being paranoid, decided to keep his hold on power and eliminated those he perceived as a threat.

They can pretty much entirely thank the Winter (and the rain before it) for their survival that year - good generals or not.

Wouldn't have done them much good if Germany launched their invasion on schedule and not have delayed it. Also, the winter hit early.

They lacked proper equipment, they didn't have enough guns and their air force was shredded. Thank Stalin if you want, but better Generals wouldn't have changed that either.

See previous statement.

So we are in Iraq because we are upholding UN sanctions even though we didn't get UN approval?

You are somewhat right.

You said that you fight till you win, now you say we have won, but it is obvious we are still fighting.

We were still fighting after we won in World War II as well. Who where we fighting? Insurgents!!! :eek:

Of course, because 2000 dead is meaningless when you look at the grand scheme of things. I mean its only a statistic.

Who said that 2000 dead was meaningless?

That's actually a very good point Vittos makes. If our position is that the UN as an organization is no longer relevant (Bush 2003), then why are we using its resolutions as justifications for our foreign policy?

Either it's relevant or it isn't. One can't pick and choose which parts of the UN are legitimate based on what's covenient to the day's debate.

As stated before, they are very very relevent. It was politics (as usual) that got in the way of actually enforcing them. Not our fault that the UN decided not to enforce them so we enforced the resolutions for them.

We were still fighting after we won in World War II as well. Who where we fighting? Insurgents!!! :eek:
Which ones?

If UN resolutions are so important to you, why do you keep saying the UN is a heap of trash and it should be junked? The current ambassador to the UN by the US says quite a bit about what the administration thinks about it.

For the millionth time....BECAUSE THE UN DOESN'T ENFORCE THEIR OWN GOD DAMN RESOLUTIONS!!!!!!!!

Ohhh, I get it. It's only important when you want it to rubber stamp your reasons. When it gets inconvenient, you trash it. Like Saddam.

Wrong. I want them to do their jobs but they aren't doing their jobs.

WMDs were the selling point however. If a man sold you a car promising you'd get 200 MPG and you only got 0 MPG, I think you'd have a long and very unhappy talk with him.

There's a thing called lemon laws where I have a legal recourse to sue the guy.

You're absolutely right. Compared to car deaths in America, 3000 people in a pair of collapsing towers is peanuts.

Accidents as compared to an act of war/terrorist attack.... now that you cannot compared. I was comparing military casualities.

Which ones?

Japanese in Japan and Germans in Germany. Come on. It wasn't that hard to figure out.

As stated before, they are very very relevent. It was politics (as usual) that got in the way of actually enforcing them. Not our fault that the UN decided not to enforce them so we enforced the resolutions for them.

I recognize the problem you're alluding to, and it's rooted in the foundation of the UN. Enforcement beyond sanctions and peacekeeping was poorly defined, and nations like Iraq and Israel found they could consistently violate resolutions without more than verbal admonishment. The League of Nations had the same problem with Germany in the 30s.

But the UN charter does not allow for member nations to take the law into their own hands either. So you explain the logic of violating the UN to deal with UN violations, because it seems like utter hypocrisy to me. Beyond that, it indicates how the invasion wasn't morally consistent in its arguments, which hints that morality might not have been the agenda driving it.

How sad that some people only consider the deaths of American soldiers as worthy of counting.
They are ALL counted. However, this thread is about the American Forces death toll. Go make an Iragi deathtoll thread if you don't like it!

As others have pointed out, there are far more deaths and tragedies involved in the US invasion of the middle east than just the soldiers.So? We aren't talking about that right now, are we?


Do you realize that a great deal of the work being carried out on behalf of the US is being done by MERCENARIES, whose deaths are not required to be counted in the official statistics?
Thats because they have a 100% CHOICE as to whether they want to be there or not. They aren't ordered to go, and can quit at any time. Theres a BIG difference between soldiers and Mercs!

What about all the Iraqis and Afghanis that have died. Don't they count?
Not in a count of US soldier deaths. Theres another list for them. Go read it if you want!

What about the soldiers and peacekeepers from countries other than the US, you know, that whole Coalition of the Willing? Don't THEY have dead soldiers? (and if not, then was it really ever a coalition to begin with?)Yes, they do. And Im sure THEIR government has a nice tally on it. Perhaps you should ask someone from those countries to comment on it?


I get sick of hearing people talk like Americans are the only humans on earth, and the rest of the people might as well be cattle.
OK, so who EVER said others don't count? We are simply talking about the US deathtoll and how the media is hyping it. My opinion? Why is 2000 such a milestone? Because its an even number? Stupid Media people piss me off!

Japanese in Japan and Germans in Germany. Come on. It wasn't that hard to figure out.
When do you consider the war over?
It wasn't like there was any serious or even remotely organised insurgency in either country after their respective surrenders.

Peace? Um ... what was that "little" thing with Iran then? Eight years and an estimated 1.5 MILLION dead? And what about his invasion of Kuwait and threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia? Gas attacks on civilian populations of the Kurds?

Ok ... there's your "man of peace." :rolleyes:

Don't forget the kurds, Udai and Qusay's secret police and torture chambers, and his support for terrorists. Yup.

Hell, noone's asked me yet....

For the millionth time....BECAUSE THE UN DOESN'T ENFORCE THEIR OWN GOD DAMN RESOLUTIONS!!!!!!!!

Maybe if the UN had an army of its own, and a financial system that didn't really rely on the continued tail wagging to member nations, the UN would be able to enforce said resolutions. As it stands, I don't think you can deny a fair chunk of Americans seem to think that the UN is actually is, or should be, the US's slave.


There's a thing called lemon laws where I have a legal recourse to sue the guy.

So how come nobody can sue Bush for selling something he didn't have? And don't give me that rubbish about how "it's so hard to find them" when they were all "We know exactly where they are" prior to the invasion.


Accidents as compared to an act of war/terrorist attack.... now that you cannot compared. I was comparing military casualities.

Even better. So it's an act of war. 3000 people are peanuts. Only smaller peanuts now. If we look at US caused civilian deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq, you'd find the number to be a fair bit higher.

But apparently non US people aren't really people and killing as many as you want of them is alright. Vietnam proved that with the "success by body count irrespective of whether they were actually fighters" mentality. (My Lai anyone?)


Don't forget the kurds


Which ones? Then ones that happened to have been removed with US approval and weapons (the famed handshake photo) or the ones who got gassed because they tried to rebel against Saddam on US promises of aid? Saddam is a bastard, but rebellion is usually quashed quite thoroughly in most nations. The US is no exception. Second American Civil War anyone?

When do you consider the war over?

September 2, 1945 for Japan. Then again when we actually signed a treaty with a UNIFIED Germany in the 1990s. However, I mark it at September 2, 1945 when Japan (the last of the axis powers) surrendered on the deck USS Missouri

It wasn't like there was any serious or even remotely organised insurgency in either country after their respective surrenders.

Do you honestly want to bet on that?

Maybe if the UN had an army of its own, and a financial system that didn't really rely on the continued tail wagging to member nations, the UN would be able to enforce said resolutions. As it stands, I don't think you can deny a fair chunk of Americans seem to think that the UN is actually is, or should be, the US's slave.

Well if they are our slave then we need to punish them severely for going against our wishes. If they were our slave, we wouldn't be sitting here having this type of a discussion.

So how come nobody can sue Bush for selling something he didn't have? And don't give me that rubbish about how "it's so hard to find them" when they were all "We know exactly where they are" prior to the invasion.

Its called the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force against Iraq. Not only is WMD in there but so is the humanitarian reasons for it as well as his violations of UN Resolutions and the Cease-Fire Agreement. So....

Even better. So it's an act of war. 3000 people are peanuts. Only smaller peanuts now. If we look at US caused civilian deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq, you'd find the number to be a fair bit higher.

And you lucky it isn't even higher. But what constitutes a civilian casualty? Insurgents don't wear uniforms so they look like civilians. Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

But apparently non US people aren't really people and killing as many as you want of them is alright. Vietnam proved that with the "success by body count irrespective of whether they were actually fighters" mentality. (My Lai anyone?)

And where did you get that notion? Civilians die in war. Its a fact of life. The point is, we do our best to minimize civilian casualties.

Do you honestly want to bet on that?
Germany didn't have any sort of insurgency. There were remnants of army forces who either surrendered late, or thought they'd fight a little more, but that was against the Russians. The Werewolves never even remotely got off the ground.

As far as the Japanese are concerned, I know less about that, but I assume there would've been pockets of resistance on various islands and on the continent. But again, I know of no insurgency in the sense of an actual guerilla (or urban guerilla) war.
Wiki gave me this link: http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/list.html I love it, but I must say that this in Iraq surely is a lot more serious than those few guys.

Its called the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force against Iraq. Not only is WMD in there but so is the humanitarian reasons for it as well as his violations of UN Resolutions and the Cease-Fire Agreement. So....
And the beat goes on and on and yet you cling to falsehoods;

The reference here to "justify[ing] action by the United States to defend itself" is a clear effort to imply a legitimate right of self-defense, despite having removed the specific language on self-defense that was in the earlier draft. The claim, implied or otherwise, of legitimate self-defense rooted in international law is based on a deliberate misreading of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Charter is clear that a country has the inherent right of self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs." The "if" is critical; Article 51 does not provide any authority for any country to preemptively attack a country that has not attacked it. Even "if" an armed attack occurs, the right of self-defense is still limited. It prevails only "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

And you lucky it isn't even higher. But what constitutes a civilian casualty? Insurgents don't wear uniforms so they look like civilians. Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.
You mean like in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia?

Doesn't the suggestion of "carpet bombing" Iraq, fly in the face of your weak excuse of "liberating" the people of Iraq, and giving them "freedom"?

And where did you get that notion? Civilians die in war. Its a fact of life. The point is, we do our best to minimize civilian casualties.
The fact is that NO Iraqi "civilians" should be dead as the result of American aggression, in an illegal and unnecessary war.

*snip*

You still trying to say its illegal even though it has been proven that it was, in fact legal? Come on Canuck Heaven, there is only so much BS a person can take from one person.

So I'll state it one more time and HOPEFULLY it'll penetrate that thick skull of yours.

Under International Law, you violate a Cease-Fire, war picks up where it left off. Hussien violated the cease-fire so we went into Iraq. It wasn't the only reason we went in either.

You mean like in Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia?

Doesn't the suggestion of "carpet bombing" Iraq, fly in the face of your weak excuse of "liberating" the people of Iraq, and giving them "freedom"?

Nope and I am not using weak excuses. The only one using those, is you.

The fact is that NO Iraqi "civilians" should be dead as the result of American aggression, in an illegal and unnecessary war.

And how many MORE Iraqis would've died if we hadn't? A hell of alot more.

You still trying to say its illegal even though it has been proven that it was, in fact legal? Come on Canuck Heaven, there is only so much BS a person can take from one person.

So I'll state it one more time and HOPEFULLY it'll penetrate that thick skull of yours.

Under International Law, you violate a Cease-Fire, war picks up where it left off. Hussien violated the cease-fire so we went into Iraq. It wasn't the only reason we went in either.



Nope and I am not using weak excuses. The only one using those, is you.



And how many MORE Iraqis would've died if we hadn't? A hell of alot more.

I'm so sorry, I am trying to be a tad nicer, but my word. You are aware that more Iraqi's have died subsequent to the conclusion of the war, since statistics are somewhat absent from the war itself, than would have perished under Saddam. American intrusion and occupation has further engendered anti-Western sentiment, and it is not the USA that has incurred the casualties for such renewed terrorism, it is the UK and Israel. It is callous I know, but the sooner we withdraw as a coalition, or abandon the USA to its fate in Iraq, the betetr. It is not, nor has ever been, worthy of a drop of British blood.

What I don't understand is that when Saddam Hussein was in power and people were dying, there was a huge big thing about how every single death that happens is significant and how we have to do our utmost to stop people dying... yet when we go in and kill a load of people, it's something that has to be done and something which isn't at all significant compared to deaths in history. And that's ignoring the fact that people die each and every day from things like falling down stairs yet no-one thinks it is a moral obligation to have stairs destroyed...

If the amount of people who died in this war isn't significant enough to be criticised, the amount who died under Saddam's reign wasn't even close to significant and we'd have been better off not going to war. Plus there'd be a more stable environment and not such a huge growth in terrorism and hate for the West.

You still trying to say its illegal even though it has been proven that it was, in fact legal? Come on Canuck Heaven, there is only so much BS a person can take from one person.

So I'll state it one more time and HOPEFULLY it'll penetrate that thick skull of yours.


How rude. I don't think flaming is going to help your case.

And, let's face it... your case needs all the help it can get. It looks like you've been served, my friend - Article 51 in no way justifies what happened.

How rude. I don't think flaming is going to help your case.

And, let's face it... your case needs all the help it can get. It looks like you've been served, my friend - Article 51 in no way justifies what happened.

You know what? Article 1 does justify our actions.

To maintain internatoinal peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace...

To this end, we should've expelled Iraq in accordance with Article 6 of the UN Charter.

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Or at least suspended in accordance with Article 5: [i]A member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.

Or you could be like the rest of us who actually know that when nations violate a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off. In the Congressional Resolution to use force against Iraq, it makes mention of the fact that Saddam did violate the approved Cease-Fire. It was among a list of reasons to use force against Iraq.

You still trying to say its illegal even though it has been proven that it was, in fact legal? Come on Canuck Heaven, there is only so much BS a person can take from one person.

So I'll state it one more time and HOPEFULLY it'll penetrate that thick skull of yours.

Under International Law, you violate a Cease-Fire, war picks up where it left off. Hussien violated the cease-fire so we went into Iraq. It wasn't the only reason we went in either.
Nice try, yet again the wrong answer.

All the answers you need:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

The President knew that the claims he made were false at the time he made them. (http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/theylied.factsheet.htm)

What the Bush Administration Said (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/02-23-2004/repeating.htm)

And the FINAL proof to end your nonsense about a "ceasefire" violation, the FACT that Bush never even mentioned anything about it in his address to the nation on March 17, 2003:

Text of President Bush's speech to the nation about military action in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/stories/bush_speech_031703.htm)


And how many MORE Iraqis would've died if we hadn't? A hell of alot more.
Of course you are guessing, and I do believe that you are wrong.

*snip*

Ignore international law. I don't really care.

I do believe that this is correct action. We should've done this a hell of a long time ago.

I believe in the reasons (all of them stated in the Authorization to use Force Against Iraq resolution)

I do know that this isn't against International Law and if you want to continue to believe it is well then it just proves that you really don't care if International Law is enforced or not.

JESUS!!! Not this shit again!:rolleyes:

Edit: Now this is what I'm looking for :D:
http://www.triton.nu/albums/pics/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again.thumb.jpg

You know what? Article 1 does justify our actions.

To maintain internatoinal peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace...


You just pick the bits you like, don't you... and ignore anything that doesn't fit.

Which is, let's face it, the technique used by the administration to justify their overseas aggressions.

See the word 'collective', in there?

I wonder why you choose to ignore it?

You just pick the bits you like, don't you... and ignore anything that doesn't fit.

Which is, let's face it, the technique used by the administration to justify their overseas aggressions.

See the word 'collective', in there?

I wonder why you choose to ignore it?

Nope, the rest of it is important too however, I just took that quote from the UN Charter because it needs to be said. It also proves that the UN does allow for preventive force to remove a threat to peace. Also, Saddam violated the Cease-fire which is a breach of the peace that he signed on to.

I also noticed that you aren't arguing with me about article 5 or 6.

As for the word collective... I'll let you find the list of nations that have joined us with support or troops.

As for the word collective... I'll let you find the list of nations that have joined us with support or troops.
Or anti-mine Monkeys!

Nope, the rest of it is important too however, I just took that quote from the UN Charter because it needs to be said. It also proves that the UN does allow for preventive force to remove a threat to peace. Also, Saddam violated the Cease-fire which is a breach of the peace that he signed on to.

I also noticed that you aren't arguing with me about article 5 or 6.

As for the word collective... I'll let you find the list of nations that have joined us with support or troops.

It LOOKS like you just took that quote from the UN Charter because, at CASUAL glance, it looks like it might, vaguely, have some connection to the topic.

Of course, close inspection reveals otherwise, does it not?

As for the word collective, a 'list of nations that have joined us' will never equate to the phrase "take effective collective measures".

Read the spirit behind the words... one is lesser lights following a brighter one, the other is a decision of equals. But, the US recognises no equals, does it?

It LOOKS like you just took that quote from the UN Charter because, at CASUAL glance, it looks like it might, vaguely, have some connection to the topic.

Sorry but no. I didn't take a casual glance at it.

Of course, close inspection reveals otherwise, does it not?

Nope.

As for the word collective, a 'list of nations that have joined us' will never equate to the phrase "take effective collective measures".

Those that supplied the troops answers that question.

Read the spirit behind the words... one is lesser lights following a brighter one, the other is a decision of equals. But, the US recognises no equals, does it?

We always recognize equals. When they deserve it.

Sorry but no. I didn't take a casual glance at it.


That much, my friend, is apparent.


Nope.


Ah... blind denial in the face of evidence.

You have done well, young padawan.


Those that supplied the troops answers that question.


Curious... I don't recall asking a question.

Feel free to answer my 'statements', though.


We always recognize equals. When they deserve it.

And, let me guess.... all those liberal powers in the UN that opposed Bush's War Of Error, don't 'deserve it'?

That's why Bush appointed an Anti-UN envoy, I guess.

Ah... blind denial in the face of evidence.

You have done well, young padawan.
"Blind denial" is exactly the correct term when referencing Corny's staunch support of the Bushmeister.

And, let me guess.... all those liberal powers in the UN that opposed Bush's War Of Error, don't 'deserve it'?
I have never seen the term "Bush's War Of Error" before but it is oh so appropriate in regards to the invasion of Iraq. If you coined that phrase on your own, then kudos to you!!

It is amazing how the people on the left don't like to see International Law followed.

It is amazing how the people on the left don't like to see International Law followed.

You know, reading that post wasted five seconds of my life that I'll never get back.

If you've nothing constructive/insightful/entertaining to say, do everyone a favor and don't post. Tossing out snippety one-liners about "the left" is pointless and annoying.

You know, reading that post wasted five seconds of my life that I'll never get back.

If you've nothing constructive/insightful/entertaining to say, do everyone a favor and don't post. Tossing out snippety one-liners about "the left" is pointless and annoying.

I can toss out whatever lines I want. However, what I said was indeed the truth. Apparently they don't mind breaking the law (Sudanese asprin factory anyone) but when it comes to enforcing it, they don't.

I'll let you find the list of nations that have joined us with support or troops.*Drum roll*
Or anti-mine Monkeys!
"The Kingdom of Morocco!" :D
It is amazing how the people on the right don't like to listen to the UN and blow up the whole world.Fixed :D
Nice try, yet again the wrong answer.

All the answers you need:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

The President knew that the claims he made were false at the time he made them. (http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/html/theylied.factsheet.htm)

What the Bush Administration Said (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/02-23-2004/repeating.htm)

And the FINAL proof to end your nonsense about a "ceasefire" violation, the FACT that Bush never even mentioned anything about it in his address to the nation on March 17, 2003:

Text of President Bush's speech to the nation about military action in Iraq (http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/stories/bush_speech_031703.htm)



Of course you are guessing, and I do believe that you are wrong.
hear hear!!!:p

I can toss out whatever lines I want. However, what I said was indeed the truth. Apparently they don't mind breaking the law (Sudanese asprin factory anyone) but when it comes to enforcing it, they don't.

So what you're saying then, is that this amorphous political entity known as The Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_left)is a proponent of international lawlessness. Do you have any idea how vague that claim is? It's unprovable.

If you have beef with a particular someone(s) just spell it out.

So what you're saying then, is that this amorphous political entity known as The Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_left)is a proponent of international lawlessness. Do you have any idea how vague that claim is? It's unprovable.

If you have beef with a particular someone(s) just spell it out.

What I have a beef with is the media for not broadcasting good news out of Iraq. What I have a beef with is the American people who want to run at the first sign of trouble. What I have a problem with is the UN for not following through on any of their resolutions that we are, in fact, enforcing. What I have a problem with is no one bothering to read the Congressional War Resolution that they passed. What I have a problem with is the President not doing anything to secure our friggin borders. What I have a problem with is that for someone reason.... well that's a personel problem. What I have a problem with is concentrating on work and other crap with my aunt dying of cancer.

I have a whole slew of problems that are way to numerous to mention.

What I have a problem with is concentrating on work and other crap with my aunt dying of cancer.I'm sorry to hear about that.:( But let's hope your aunt beat that friggin cancer once and for all!;)

What I have a beef with is the media for not broadcasting good news out of Iraq. What I have a beef with is the American people who want to run at the first sign of trouble. What I have a problem with is the UN for not following through on any of their resolutions that we are, in fact, enforcing. What I have a problem with is no one bothering to read the Congressional War Resolution that they passed. What I have a problem with is the President not doing anything to secure our friggin borders. What I have a problem with is that for someone reason.... well that's a personel problem. What I have a problem with is concentrating on work and other crap with my aunt dying of cancer.

I have a whole slew of problems that are way to numerous to mention.

Maybe there just isn't THAT much good news coming out of Iraq? It's hard to get excited about 100 new schools, for example, when none of them have power for more than an hour a day.

You don't even realise how illogical it is to make the assertion "What I have a problem with is the UN for not following through on any of their resolutions that we are, in fact, enforcing"... do you?

The one point I must agree on, however, is the borders. And THAT, is why you should have voted Kerry. You notice Bush STILL hasn't done a damn thing to protect the American food industry. Just IMAGINE anthrax released into cereal crops.... You'll notice, Bush has done precious little to clamp down on the ports, despite Kerry's manifesto promises to do just that. Just what HAS Bush done to close the Southern borders? Just what HAS Bush done to stop casual transit across the Canadian border?

Just what HAS Bush done to stop casual transit across the Canadian border?
Oh come on, that's just unfair. He's done a lot to stop casual transit.. with your dollar falling relative to ours, complete disregard for Canadians shortly after 9/11 and in afghanistan, and general ass-hattery, why, very few of my friends make casual trips down to the States these days.

Oh come on, that's just unfair. He's done a lot to stop casual transit.. with your dollar falling relative to ours, complete disregard for Canadians shortly after 9/11 and in afghanistan, and general ass-hattery, why, very few of my friends make casual trips down to the States these days.

:D

Indeed.

Of course, the casual visitors that came bearing currency (as opposed to, say, bombs) were never really the problem anyway.

Well if they are our slave then we need to punish them severely for going against our wishes. If they were our slave, we wouldn't be sitting here having this type of a discussion.

And that's precisely why the UN doesn't work. The biggest patrons are the tail that wants to wag the dog rather than the other way round.


Its called the Joint Resolution on the Use of Force against Iraq. Not only is WMD in there but so is the humanitarian reasons for it as well as his violations of UN Resolutions and the Cease-Fire Agreement. So....

Nice try, no cigar. The same salesman who sells you a car promising everything including the 200 MPG still has to deliver it all. If everything else he says is true BUT the 200 MPG thing which is in actuality 0 MPG, that's still grounds for a lawsuit for false advertising. So, where's the recourse to suing Bush? I don't see it.

Remember, that was his main selling point to Congress. No amount of weaseling will take that point away.


And you lucky it isn't even higher. But what constitutes a civilian casualty? Insurgents don't wear uniforms so they look like civilians. Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

Precisely the same mentality the US had in the Vietnam war that led to the My Lai Massacre. That one was nothing more than a DELIBERATE order by higher ups to "kill everything not American" so they could present a "victory by bodycount"

As for a civilian casualty, that would be someone who isn't part of a uniformed/non-uniformed group and who isn't attacking the local army group without provocation. Care to point out the cases of weddings and villages that were bombed just because of "faulty intelligence" and "pilot error"?


And where did you get that notion? Civilians die in war. Its a fact of life. The point is, we do our best to minimize civilian casualties.

Considering that the US Blue on Blue track record isn't all that inspiring, I have to wonder what they mean by "best" for minimizing civilian casualties.

And what about that case of the US pilot who was in Italy and snapped a cable car wire, causing 20 plus deaths? Was he punished? Nope, he was fully acquitted. Not even a slap on the wrist. If your idea of minimizing civilian casualties is to prevent them from happening, they're not doing it.

What next? A "pilot error" which results in a 500 kilo training bomb being dropped into a school and the pilot responsible walking away without even a reprimand?

I'm sorry to hear about that.:( But let's hope your aunt beat that friggin cancer once and for all!;)

There's a 10% survival rate for stage 4 cancer but I am in complete agreement with you :)

Maybe there just isn't THAT much good news coming out of Iraq? It's hard to get excited about 100 new schools, for example, when none of them have power for more than an hour a day.

OMFG! You really are a dunce. There is a hell of a lot of good news coming out of Iraq that doesn't get reported.

You don't even realise how illogical it is to make the assertion "What I have a problem with is the UN for not following through on any of their resolutions that we are, in fact, enforcing"... do you?


What's illogical? I am stating nothing but a truth but alas, you are just proving my point that no matter the reasons, you just don't care.

The one point I must agree on, however, is the borders. And THAT, is why you should have voted Kerry.

Kerry wouldn't do what needs to be doing and you damn well know it.

You notice Bush STILL hasn't done a damn thing to protect the American food industry. Just IMAGINE anthrax released into cereal crops.... You'll notice, Bush has done precious little to clamp down on the ports, despite Kerry's manifesto promises to do just that. Just what HAS Bush done to close the Southern borders? Just what HAS Bush done to stop casual transit across the Canadian border?

Well if you read up on the requirements to cross the border these days, he's placed a band-aid on the northern border. As for the Southern Border, Kerry wouldn't place the troops on the border. That is what I want. I want the military to police the borders. Or at least begin to tell the cities to hand over all illegal immigrants that they have.

The cities themselves are flaunting the law. They have told people do not report illegal immigrents to the feds. They should all be brought up on charges on that alone.

The cities themselves are flaunting the law. They have told people do not report illegal immigrents to the feds. They should all be brought up on charges on that alone.
And do you know why?
Because the local economy depends on them! Taking them away will kill the economy's of those towns close to the border faster than they can drop the minimum wages and social security benefits.
This way everyone is happy except the right-wing crackpots who've never been there.

As for a civilian casualty, that would be someone who isn't part of a uniformed/non-uniformed group and who isn't attacking the local army group without provocation. Care to point out the cases of weddings and villages that were bombed just because of "faulty intelligence" and "pilot error"?

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.

And what about that case of the US pilot who was in Italy and snapped a cable car wire, causing 20 plus deaths? Was he punished? Nope, he was fully acquitted. Not even a slap on the wrist. If your idea of minimizing civilian casualties is to prevent them from happening, they're not doing it.

I suggest you research that bit more.

OMFG! You really are a dunce. There is a hell of a lot of good news coming out of Iraq that doesn't get reported.


Well... if its not getting reported... how do you know good things are happening..?

Psychic links? :p

And do you know why?
Because the local economy depends on them! Taking them away will kill the economy's of those towns close to the border faster than they can drop the minimum wages and social security benefits.
This way everyone is happy except the right-wing crackpots who've never been there.

I. Don't. Care.

I'm a law abiding citizen and I demand that our local leaders follow the same laws as we do. If I here of illegals working somewhere, I'll damn well report the company as well as the person that they have employed.

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.

Conveniently side skipping the issues of what to do about those villages that were bombed quite thoroughly in the early morning with nary an insurgent in sight. Or those weddings that got strafed.

You also conveniently side skipped the issue regarding suing Bush for false advertising. Surely as a President, he does have a bit of responsibility not to sell Congress "magic beans" now does he?

Want to dodge some more?


I suggest you research that bit more.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march99/gondola4.htm

Acquitted of all charges. Enough research for you? Or maybe you'll claim it's a grand conspiracy hmm?

Anyone care to remember what those US crewmembers who drove a tank over some South Korean schoolkids were convicted of? Nothing. Certainly, they had permission to drive there. But tell me, if a man runs down another on a road he has a right to drive on, can he walk away without punishment and losing his license?

Not in most courts.

In the US military courts? Anything goes.

Ah, the irony. Did anyone DARE say "But only 5000 people died, that's not that many" (and get away with it unscathed) after the WTC attacks? Y'know, you could put those in context too.I did, and I'll say it again whenever necessary. Just look at history, because really, 5000 isn't that much. Does 6 million sound familiar? Stalin and his 30 million? Pol Pot? Mao? Seriously, one bearded Arab's deeds aren't the size of the madmen I mentioned in my previous sentence. Not even close.

All of their victims were 'innocent', so why does the amount matter? One, ten or a thousand innocent victims? Does it make a difference? No innocent victim should die because of the insane will of some terrorist or genocidal leader.

Well... if its not getting reported... how do you know good things are happening..?

Psychic links? :p

Nope. Just listening to people who were there. The military is really getting annoyed with the press for not showing the good that they are doing for the Iraqi people.

It goes back to that old addage, if it bleeds it leads.

All of their victims were 'innocent', so why does the amount matter? One, ten or a thousand innocent victims? Does it make a difference? No innocent victim should die because of the insane will of some terrorist or genocidal leader.
:fluffle:

Kerry wouldn't do what needs to be doing and you damn well know it.


No offense, but how do you "know this"?

I mean, you go on about how you "know" that GW would be better for security at the same time as you admit that he has sucked in that regard, so what makes you think your judgement is so stellar on this matter?

Did it come to you in a dream?

Conveniently side skipping the issues of what to do about those villages that were bombed quite thoroughly in the early morning with nary an insurgent in sight. Or those weddings that got strafed.

And why did we do that? Oh yea... intel said that terrorists where there. Yes its customary in Iraq to fire your weapons in the air but really... people should know you don't do that while fighting is going on. Also, there really weren't proof that it was a wedding at most of those.

You also conveniently side skipped the issue regarding suing Bush for false advertising. Surely as a President, he does have a bit of responsibility not to sell Congress "magic beans" now does he?

This case was tossed out of court.

Want to dodge some more?

I have never dodged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march99/gondola4.htm

Acquitted of all charges. Enough research for you? Or maybe you'll claim it's a grand conspiracy hmm?

Both sides agree the Mount Cermis ski lift wasn't marked on Ashby's government-issue map. Ashby testified last week that he didn't see the cable until the last second.

Really should read. Apparently, the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond a resonable doubt. Also, it looks like the defense had their case in duck order. There is plenty of evidence to acquit the pilot.

And, let me guess.... all those liberal powers in the UN that opposed Bush's War Of Error, don't 'deserve it'?
How do you call Russia and China liberal?

It is amazing how some people on the left don't like to see International Law followed.
With the minor correction, I agree with you.

Do you realise that support for international law puts you on the left side of the spectrum?

OMFG! You really are a dunce. There is a hell of a lot of good news coming out of Iraq that doesn't get reported.


you mean the "good news" that US casualty rates are up to almost 3/day this month?

Or the "Good news" that over half of all military members (http://www.nbc17.com/news/5199265/detail.html?rss=tri&psp=news) in that bastion of military presence - North Carolina - think that GW's handling of this war sucks?


Just what "good news" are we talking about here?

With the minor correction, I agree with you.

Do you realise that support for international law puts you on the left side of the spectrum?

Amazing since people on the left that I know do not want to enforce international law. Doesn't that put them on the right? :D

And why did we do that? Oh yea... intel said that terrorists where there. Yes its customary in Iraq to fire your weapons in the air but really... people should know you don't do that while fighting is going on. Also, there really weren't proof that it was a wedding at most of those.

Intel that was based on what? Information from fueding villagers. Where do you get your intelligence officers I wonder? Or maybe they don't really bother to check the veracity of their information hmmm? Can I email the CIA with a letter stating that you are actually a terrorist and expect to see you and your home turned to ash the next day?

Really. You have to stop defending the military and really take a look at what they do and admit to their foul ups.

As for no proof that it wasn't a wedding, what do you base that claim on hmm? The same place you claim that Kerry would have been a worst president although he actually never was one? Your imagination?


This case was tossed out of court.


Oh really? So far as I know, there was never even a subpeona. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.


I have never dodged.


You certainly did until I caught you. You also dodged the issue about the UN. The US, is the tail that wags the dog, or wishes to be. Can anyone really take the US claims of "working for the good of all" seriously if it does not even bother to work with them but rather, try to force them?

The US, by all actions so far, cares not a whit about other nations so long as a steady influx of resources and money continues to come in. Their claims to the contradictory.


Really should read. Apparently, the prosecution didn't prove the case beyond a resonable doubt. Also, it looks like the defense had their case in duck order. There is plenty of evidence to acquit the pilot.

Duck order? I am unfamiliar with that term. However, this argument by the defense is beyond the pale:

Defense lawyers claimed Ashby and his navigator, Capt. Joseph Schweitzer, 31, of Westbury, N.Y., were charged because of political pressure that went as high as the White House.

Charged as a result of political pressure rather than because they caused 20 deaths?

Are US military personel exempt from legal prosecution when they are personally involved in causing the deaths of 20 people?

And this. This is just stringing together a bunch of excuses.

Defense attorney Frank Spinner said that a number of problems suddenly confronted Ashby in the seconds before his jet hit the cable -- the spotty altitude gauge didn't warn him his plane was too low, the optical illusion, and the fact that the ground rose 150 feet during the last seconds before the jet sliced the cable.

Suddenly the altitude gauge doesn't work like it should? Why on earth was he flying at mountain level then? If he had an malfunction with the altitude gauge, why not rise above the obvious obstructions like mountains so you don't make an error through visual observation?

Furthermore, from what is being covered, it appears that the flight path took the pilot over a number of easily identifiable altitude markers. Such as roads and buildings. Of course, these were ignored, leading to the accident. An accident which the pilot responsible walks away from without even a reprimand, or a change in operational procedures, ensuring that another similar accident can occur in the future.

Justice, was not served. US military desires however, were.

I wait the day that a US pilot commits a "pilot error" on US soil and walks away after causing a number of deaths without punishment. And I wait to see what the reactions will be like.

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.
Tough talk from one who cannot/will not join the military for a multitude of reasons, ranging from "medical condition" to your dislike of the Generals because you wouldn't be able to "follow orders". However, I am surprised that a self proclaimed Christian would advocate murder, but I am not surprised that you would "put a bullet through the back of skull".

...but I am not surprised that you would "put a bullet through the back of skull".
*Sits in a shadowy corner hooting occasionally while taking bets*

Amazing since people on the left that I know do not want to enforce international law. Doesn't that put them on the right? :D
How ironic. You proclaim that the US was enforcing International Law (by invading Iraq) and you fully support that decision (which was wrong BTW), yet you believe that the US should not sign on to the International Criminal Court that would uphold those laws that you so :rolleyes: lovingly cherish.

You want the US to have immunity from any wrongdoings, yet you are not willing to extend the same to others such as Iraq. I think you have impaled yourself on your own lance.

How ironic. You proclaim that the US was enforcing International Law (by invading Iraq) and you fully support that decision (which was wrong BTW), yet you believe that the US should not sign on to the International Criminal Court that would uphold those laws that you so :rolleyes: lovingly cherish.

We have only ONE court that has the full voice of Law in the United States Constitution. That is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There is no other avenue of appeal once the Supreme Court has rendered its decision. They handle all matters for the United States when they so choose to do so since all they have to do is to make clear the decision. I uphold Article III of the US Constitution.

You want the US to have immunity from any wrongdoings, yet you are not willing to extend the same to others such as Iraq. I think you have impaled yourself on your own lance.

Who says they have immunity? Immunity from an internatonal trial yes but not immunity for trial by the US military court of justice in accordance with the UCMJ.

We have only ONE court that has the full voice of Law in the United States Constitution. That is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There is no other avenue of appeal once the Supreme Court has rendered its decision. They handle all matters for the United States when they so choose to do so since all they have to do is to make clear the decision. I uphold Article III of the US Constitution.



Who says they have immunity? Immunity from an internatonal trial yes but not immunity for trial by the US military court of justice in accordance with the UCMJ.

What business do we have attempting to enforce international law by removing Saddam if we are not willing to subject ourselves to the same law?

What business do we have attempting to enforce international law by removing Saddam if we are not willing to subject ourselves to the same law?

We do subject ourselves to the same law. We try those that violate it.

We do subject ourselves to the same law. We try those that violate it.

We do not subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, yet we attempt to enforce that jurisdiction upon others.

We do subject ourselves to the same law.
No you do not. You want the US to be above International Law and yet you expect others to adhere. I call that hypocritical to say the least.

We try those that violate it.
Under what authority does the US have the "right" to try those who violate International Law?

We do not subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, yet we attempt to enforce that jurisdiction upon others.

uhhh Sdaeriji, we don't force it. We enforce international law yes. As any self-respecting nation should do.

No you do not. You want the US to be above International Law and yet you expect others to adhere. I call that hypocritical to say the least.

You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.

Under what authority does the US have the "right" to try those who violate International Law?

We aren't trying them. Unless you are talking about the american that we try ourselves then it is in accordence with the UCMJ.

uhhh Sdaeriji, we don't force it. We enforce international law yes. As any self-respecting nation should do.

What are you talking about? I am saying that we do not subject ourselves to the International Criminal Court, but we attempt to enforce international law upon other nations. We enforce laws that we do not follow.

What are you talking about? I am saying that we do not subject ourselves to the International Criminal Court, but we attempt to enforce international law upon other nations. We enforce laws that we do not follow.

Since when do we have to be a member of something to enforce international law? Truth is, we don't hvae to be a member of something to enforce international law.

Since when do we have to be a member of something to enforce international law? Truth is, we don't hvae to be a member of something to enforce international law.

We don't allow ourselves to be subject to the very same international law that we go around enforcing.

We don't allow ourselves to be subject to the very same international law that we go around enforcing.

We still enforce international law on ourselves as well which is what I have been saying.

We still enforce international law on ourselves as well which is what I have been saying.

No we don't. We enforce our own law on ourselves. Sometimes it happens to jive with international law. Sometimes it does not. If we do not allow ourselves to be subject to the same laws as we want other nations to be subject to, we are hypocrites.

No we don't. We enforce our own law on ourselves.

We also try our own servicemen/women who violate international law.

Sometimes it happens to jive with international law. Sometimes it does not. If we do not allow ourselves to be subject to the same laws as we want other nations to be subject to, we are hypocrites.

REad previous statement.

We also try our own servicemen/women who violate international law.



REad previous statement.

But we try them according to our own laws, not according to international laws. And we do not allow international courts to try our own servicemen/women. Yet we expect other nations to do so.

But we try them according to our own laws, not according to international laws. And we do not allow international courts to try our own servicemen/women. Yet we expect other nations to do so.

And half of our laws IS international law when it comes to matters military.

And half of our laws IS international law when it comes to matters military.

That doesn't matter. We still do not allow our military to be subject to international law.

That doesn't matter.

Actually, it does matter.

We still do not allow our military to be subject to international law.

That's because they already are subject to international law. We just don't turn them over to an international court.

Actually, it does matter.



That's because they already are subject to international law. We just don't turn them over to an international court.

Part and parcel of being subject to international law is being tried by an international court. If they are tried by an American court for violating American laws, then they are being subject to American law. If they go to an American prison, they are being subject to American law. If an American citizen were apprehended for a crime in Malaysia, were tried in Malaysia and imprisoned in Malaysia, would you consider them having been subject to American law simply because the law that the citizen were charged for violating happened to also be a law in the US?

Listen, this is a very simple point being argued. We the US urge other nations to follow international laws. So do we or do we not follow those very same laws?

Corneliu, you say that we do follow international law, where it doesn't conflict with US law. If I were to show you an example of our country refusing to follow laws we wanted everyone else to follow, would that change your mind?

You couldn't be farther from the truth if you tried.
No Corneliu. I am right on the money and your argument is bogus.

We aren't trying them.
Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay come to mind. Both clearly a violation of International Law. The US has denied these detainees their human rights and hold these prisoners without normal recourse. The world watches and shakes its' collective head.

Some detainees have even been tortured to death. No wonder that you want the US to have immunity from International laws.

The fact that you stated that you would shoot a prisoner from behind shows exactly where you stand on these moral and ethical issues involving the US.

For shame.:(

No your not CH. You really aren't but your so brainwashed and convinced in your ways that it makes little difference.

I don't care though. Your entitled to your falsehoods.

I'm done.

uhhh Sdaeriji, we don't force it. We enforce international law yes. As any self-respecting nation should do.

You know something Corneliu? You are effectively saying that the sheriff is above the law. And that self appointed sheriff is none other than the US. No enforcement agency should ever enforce a law that it is above or places itself above of.

The US places itself above international law when it finds it convenient to follow it and thus, it has no business enforcing international law.

If you can't see that, then you obviously believe in Superiority rather than Equality, or for that matter, fairness or the even luminous concept of justice.

Dodge my questions some more, why don't you.

No your not CH. You really aren't but your so brainwashed and convinced in your ways that it makes little difference.

I don't care though. Your entitled to your falsehoods.

I'm done.
You are done because your arguments aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. You have opted to follow the Bush doctrine wherever it may go and it all leads to dead ends.

The UN did not sanction the invasion of Iraq and was quite prepared to allow the inspectors to finish their job, and as it appears the UN was correct in their thinking and the US was wrong.

The subject regarding a violation of a ceasefire is a non starter and even Bush did not use that lame excuse in his address to the nation and it certainly was a non starter in the UN. The "no fly zone" established by the US, the UK and France was never sanctioned by the UN. If anything, the US was violating Iraq sovereignity by establishing a "no fly zone" in the first place, and complicated that even more by dropping bombs on Iraq.

The treatment of Iraqi prisoners and the debacles that occurred at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib clearly demonstrate to the world that the US is content acting outside of International laws, especially on human rights issues.

Then you ice the whole argument by making the following statements:

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

If I capture someone, who has a gun and was using it to shoot at me, then he is no longer protected. He is considered an illegal and I'll put a bullet through the back of skull.
Yeah, you are done alright, especially since you condone murdering someone, and from behind no less. Tsk. Tsk.

No your not CH. You really aren't but your so brainwashed and convinced in your ways that it makes little difference.

I don't care though. Your entitled to your falsehoods.

I'm done.
Wow. You sound like a hybrid of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.:eek: :eek: :eek:

*Waiting for Corny to smack me across the face. :D

We have only ONE court that has the full voice of Law in the United States Constitution. That is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There is no other avenue of appeal once the Supreme Court has rendered its decision.The World peoples can only recognize the Jurisdiction of US Courts...for Crimes committed in the US.
Its a fundamental basis for sovereign governments.

US land=US law
Their Land=Their Law

International court should be for War-crimes and other special situations...

OMFG! You really are a dunce.


Alright, put your pompoms down.

No need to get all aggressive and 'flamey'.

So - you don't agree with me, fine.

It might help your case not to demean yourself with insults.


There is a hell of a lot of good news coming out of Iraq that doesn't get reported.


Yeah, and you know that how.... think about it...


What's illogical? I am stating nothing but a truth but alas, you are just proving my point that no matter the reasons, you just don't care.


You say truth, I say 'proof'.


Kerry wouldn't do what needs to be doing and you damn well know it.


Actually, no - I don't know that.

I listened before the last election, I listened during the election and I listened after. I don't have any vested interest in US politics, because I'm a non-voter, with no particular party affiliation... but the one who WAS talking about protecting the borders was Kerry, while Bush was keeping the heartland scared, to massage them with war-talk.


Well if you read up on the requirements to cross the border these days, he's placed a band-aid on the northern border. As for the Southern Border, Kerry wouldn't place the troops on the border. That is what I want. I want the military to police the borders. Or at least begin to tell the cities to hand over all illegal immigrants that they have.

The cities themselves are flaunting the law. They have told people do not report illegal immigrents to the feds. They should all be brought up on charges on that alone.

The problem isn't the cities, and it isn't the feds. It isn't even the number of officers.

The problem is, ONLY proven Mexican citizens are actually detained for return. So - and Argentinian citizen turns up on the border AND get's caught, what happens? He's given a court date, and released on his own recognizance.

The problem is, a 'porous' border, with no driver at the wheel... no policy.

How do you call Russia and China liberal?


I don't, particularly.... I've just noticed that, everytime ANYONE disagrees with Corneliu, it's only a matter of time before he/she/they/it get(s) labelled 'liberal'.

Wow. You sound like a hybrid of Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter.:eek: :eek: :eek:

Maybe Corneliu is actually Ann Coulter. :p

Shit happens when people start wars based on their ideologies instead of rational arguments. There's no doubt the neo-cunts saw this as something similar to "their defeat" of communism. The entire US administration kept going on & on about how coalition forces would be greeted as liberators. They still do actually. Which is a little odd considering their own sources.
British defence department (can't remember what brand) just published that 82% of the Iraqi population want the coalition forces out immediately. 45% believes armed resistance against coalition forces is in order. Less than 1% feels the coalition forces have made Iraq a better/safer place to be.

US forces have spend roughly 1,8 billion rounds so far. That's a little under a million rounds for each insurgent & civillian they've shot... And it haven't had any noticable effect (other than on the enviroment).

The Al-Qaeda that didn't exist in Iraq prior to the invasion now thrives there. Jim Judd, head of Canadian intelligence, recently explained how Iraq is now the main traininggrounds for Al-Qaeda, where "well trained, highly efficient and dangerous individuals" are educated & send off to the four corners of the world to spread the word.

Last tuesday, international institute for strategic studies affirmed that the plans to train & equip Iraqi police & military forces, and have them solve the everyday security tasks have pretty much completely failed. Both are almost completely incapable of resolving any conflicts at this time.

The oilproduction is still below pre-war levels. Powersupplies are unreliable, and far below the 6000 megawatt that was the goal. Roughly one third of the population still lacks access to watersupplies.

The Brookings Institution thinktank estimates that between 30-35% of the Iraqi population are unemployed, and a further 20-25% are underemployed.
A combination of lack of infrastructure & massive (and by CIA estimates, irreversible) corruption is to blame.

Widespread belief amongst intelligence agencies of the world, primarily the US & British, is that the proposed government & democracy cannot function. All initiatives are killed by either corruption or terrorism, and the only things resembling armed forces are Kurdish & Shiite.

So... 2000 dead yankees, and some of you still think this was a good idea? A battered, broken country, verging on civil war, and with a population dying from cold, lack of sanitation, medical supplies and access to food & drinkingwater, and some of you still think this was the right thing to do?

I apologise if I sound slightly antagonistic, but you warmongers aren't human, and I'm not at all sure I think you deserve to live.

Shit happens when people start wars based on their ideologies instead of rational arguments. There's no doubt the neo-cunts saw this as something similar to "their defeat" of communism. The entire US administration kept going on & on about how coalition forces would be greeted as liberators. They still do actually. Which is a little odd considering their own sources.
British defence department (can't remember what brand) just published that 82% of the Iraqi population want the coalition forces out immediately. 45% believes armed resistance against coalition forces is in order. Less than 1% feels the coalition forces have made Iraq a better/safer place to be.

US forces have spend roughly 1,8 billion rounds so far. That's a little under a million rounds for each insurgent & civillian they've shot... And it haven't had any noticable effect (other than on the enviroment).

The Al-Qaeda that didn't exist in Iraq prior to the invasion now thrives there. Jim Judd, head of Canadian intelligence, recently explained how Iraq is now the main traininggrounds for Al-Qaeda, where "well trained, highly efficient and dangerous individuals" are educated & send off to the four corners of the world to spread the word.

Last tuesday, international institute for strategic studies affirmed that the plans to train & equip Iraqi police & military forces, and have them solve the everyday security tasks have pretty much completely failed. Both are almost completely incapable of resolving any conflicts at this time.

The oilproduction is still below pre-war levels. Powersupplies are unreliable, and far below the 6000 megawatt that was the goal. Roughly one third of the population still lacks access to watersupplies.

The Brookings Institution thinktank estimates that between 30-35% of the Iraqi population are unemployed, and a further 20-25% are underemployed.
A combination of lack of infrastructure & massive (and by CIA estimates, irreversible) corruption is to blame.

Widespread belief amongst intelligence agencies of the world, primarily the US & British, is that the proposed government & democracy cannot function. All initiatives are killed by either corruption or terrorism, and the only things resembling armed forces are Kurdish & Shiite.

So... 2000 dead yankees, and some of you still think this was a good idea? A battered, broken country, verging on civil war, and with a population dying from cold, lack of sanitation, medical supplies and access to food & drinkingwater, and some of you still think this was the right thing to do?
:rolleyes: So maybe, these are some of the good things coming out of Iraq that Corny is referring to?? /end :rolleyes:

I apologise if I sound slightly antagonistic, but you warmongers aren't human, and I'm not at all sure I think you deserve to live.
Didn't you know that it is peace loving "liberals" and/or "hippies" that are responsible for the woes of the modern world?:rolleyes:

While this may seem narrow minded, i find considering the numbers of deaths in any war irrelevant. If a war was began for the wrong reasons then it does not justify the death of one soldier. If the war was began with the intention to serve good or justice, then it justifies any number of deaths, especially deaths of those in democratic countries for whom our governments speak for us all.

Whether this war has served good or justice in reality and the long term, may be considered as simply our ability to implement the initial intentions of our governments. Although the behaviour of our soldiers and generals overseas, also reflects interestingly on our society and culture, and perhaps suggests truths about the nature of morality within our people regardless of the intentions of the government.

Personally I am still undecided as to the initial motives of the coalition. I find it hard to believe the government simply had the motive of spreading 'liberty' or 'democracy' since it continuously ignores the opportunity to do so elsewhere (with no definitive standpoint on may similar African regimes, let alone action) for countries less strategically and resourcefully important.

I accept this argument is open to the criticism of moral relativity (being devoid of a religious perspective makes any definition of 'good' and 'justice' very difficult). But I hope you will agree that it is logical to ignore the numbers of casualties, and instead concentrate on the more productive thoughts of if our leaders acted morally.

I say this because I am on the whole proud of British soldiers conduct, and believe placing their deaths in context is not only pointless, as I have explained above, but also belittling of there great sacrifices.

Why bother discussing a useless topic like the 2000th American war victim? Man, what a waste of time. Go do something useful with your lives, like getting a job or something. The only thing I have seen here in this thread are people who are all talking to a big brick wall. Neither of the sides are listening, and both sides are all convinced about their own interpretation of the world, and their reality is binding and everybody else must their way of thinking, or else he/she's a Bill O'Reilly or a liberal. Both are lousy insults too but that's not the issue.

Way to discuss things people, keep it up I love it :)

@ CanuckHeaven whatever point you were trying to make, sailed right by me. Sarcasm works best face to face, or between people who at least have some idea of the mindset of their fellow debater(s).
- But you can always assume I'm retarded.
While this may seem narrow minded, i find considering the numbers of deaths in any war irrelevant. If a war was began for the wrong reasons then it does not justify the death of one soldier. If the war was began with the intention to serve good or justice, then it justifies any number of deaths, especially deaths of those in democratic countries for whom our governments speak for us all. ´
So what you're saying is that only American & Polish forces should've carried out this illegal invasion? As far as I remember, the rest of us got forced into this by governments who did the exact opposite of what almost 100% of their populations wanted.
I can't imagine what democracy or the wishes of populations has to do with this damn war.
Whether this war has served good or justice in reality and the long term, may be considered as simply our ability to implement the initial intentions of our governments. Although the behaviour of our soldiers and generals overseas, also reflects interestingly on our society and culture, and perhaps suggests truths about the nature of morality within our people regardless of the intentions of the government.

Personally I am still undecided as to the initial motives of the coalition. I find it hard to believe the government simply had the motive of spreading 'liberty' or 'democracy' since it continuously ignores the opportunity to do so elsewhere (with no definitive standpoint on may similar African regimes, let alone action) for countries less strategically and resourcefully important.
The war was illegal to start with. That we 1st world wankers are above the law doesn't change that fact. And as long as organisations such as WTO exists only to facilitate outright piracy on poorer nations, I'm not gonna give our nasty governments the benefit of the doubt.
If this was for a good cause, then why kill all diplomatic efforts, produce fake intelligence reports, and run smear campaigns against UN weapons inspectors?

War makes animals of men. Always have & likely always will. Even UN peacekeeping forces have to deal with brutality caused by alienation & racism.
I accept this argument is open to the criticism of moral relativity (being devoid of a religious perspective makes any definition of 'good' and 'justice' very difficult). But I hope you will agree that it is logical to ignore the numbers of casualties, and instead concentrate on the more productive thoughts of if our leaders acted morally.
Most of the EU countries, and a long list of others, continually tried to have the blood for oil sanctions lifted, because they were killing insane amounts of Iraqi civillians.
The civillian deathcount from the war is now higher than that, by all accounts. I disagree that one shouldn't count corpses. This is human lives we're talking about. Not dead fleas. Oddly, it seems most of our governments did agree with me on that for quite a few years. They just don't anymore.

Perhaps they have their eyes on something they feel outweights the horrendous loss of life?

Incidentially, how can these democratically elected leaders, who act on behalf of their voters, act moral when they go against the wishes of their peoples? Did Tony act on behalf of his people when he sent the troops off to fight against the will of some 85+% of the population? Was it the moral thing to do then?
I say this because I am on the whole proud of British soldiers conduct, and believe placing their deaths in context is not only pointless, as I have explained above, but also belittling of there great sacrifices.
I'm as proud as you are of the conduct of the British forces. But I disagree with you about the bodycount. If we do not consider the people who perish when we try to achive our agendas, and if we do not consider how many people perish, we might as well start holy wars again. If the cost of achiving some lofty (and probably fictitious) goal isn't considered, then how do we estimate whether it is worth persuing?

Southern Germany has a lot of uranium. Valuable resource that. Shall we start the invasion now then? We might as well. After all, it's completely irrelevant that we'll destroy half the globe in the process, as long as we remember to salute the mutilated remains of our fellows once in a while.

Why bother discussing a useless topic like the 2000th American war victim? Man, what a waste of time. Go do something useful with your lives, like getting a job or something. The only thing I have seen here in this thread are people who are all talking to a big brick wall. Neither of the sides are listening, and both sides are all convinced about their own interpretation of the world, and their reality is binding and everybody else must their way of thinking, or else he/she's a Bill O'Reilly or a liberal. Both are lousy insults too but that's not the issue.

Way to discuss things people, keep it up I love it :)

Part of the reason I've avoided this thread. I'm not Bill O'Reilly, but plenty of people seem to want to paint me with that brush.

I'd rather talk about sex.

I'd rather talk about sex.

Why aren't you on the Babe pic thread then? Seems like an apt place to begin. :p

Why aren't you on the Babe pic thread then? Seems like an apt place to begin. :p
Already been there...

@ CanuckHeaven whatever point you were trying to make, sailed right by me. Sarcasm works best face to face, or between people who at least have some idea of the mindset of their fellow debater(s).
The sarcasm was not directed at you in any sense. I quite agree with everything that you stated. The sarcasm was directly pointed towards Corneliu who staunchly defends Bush's foray into Iraq, and who laments that the "good news" coming out of Iraq is generally ignored by the media.

- But you can always assume I'm retarded.
I am sorry if my sarcasm caused you any confusion. As stated above, the sarcasm was directly pointed at Corneliu.

2,000 Americans. Alot, yes, but in context not so many. But how many Iraqis? How many civilians. By conservative estimate around 26,000, with some, well conducted and credidable polls as high as 100,000 (although the competence interval on that one was very large. 8,000-144,000). The most common, and crediable number is around 32,000. That is a lot of people. A lot of innocents, that does not include Iraqi military (but it does include police). War is bloody, and I frown on it. But it is to late to pull out now. But its not to late to change our tactics.

The sarcasm was not directed at you in any sense. I quite agree with everything that you stated. The sarcasm was directly pointed towards Corneliu who staunchly defends Bush's foray into Iraq, and who laments that the "good news" coming out of Iraq is generally ignored by the media.


I am sorry if my sarcasm caused you any confusion. As stated above, the sarcasm was directly pointed at Corneliu.
Oh.. Actually I did suspect it wasn't meant for me, it just seemed a bit odd :p

Oh.. Actually I did suspect it wasn't meant for me, it just seemed a bit odd :p
It really wouldn't appear odd to you if you realized that Corneliu and I have been debating the issues surrounding the invasion of Iraq for well over a year now, and since you are relatively new to NS you probably wouldn't have understood the intent of the sarcasm.

At any rate, hang in there and keep up with the good posts.:)

Strange, how you invade another country and its inhabitants fight you.
Strikes me where this comes from.
Well said.

Won't argue there. [About the war on Afghanistan]

I will. Let me know if you need some education.

17 Violations of UN Resolutions. Violation of the Cease-fire (automatic start of war here). Mass slaughter of those that disagree with him. [About the war on Iraq]

If violations of UN resolutions was a valid reason, or just a valid argument for starting a war, we should start by invading Israel, and then move on to invading America. This argument is utter bullshit, and the fact that you know about the 17 violations assures me that you know just how full of shit you are, using it as justification for an invasion.

The violation of the Cease-Fire agreement have been perpetrated by American and British forces every time. A proper, and by international law, legal response to violating no-fly zones etc, is to do what Iraq did: shoot down the fucking planes.
Again your argument is fallacious, and since you aparently do know what you're talking about, I can only assume it's a malicious lie on your behalf.

Aren't you forgetting to mention that the CIA, under orders from the civil government, helped Saddam assume leadership of the Bath party, helped Saddams Bath party grab power, trained Saddams armed forces, funded Saddams armed forces, helped Saddam train his counter terrorism forces, and promised, and since gave, Saddams regime funding in return for the war on Iran, his slaughter of the Kurdish minority and so on?
So when your regime enabled his regime to slaughter his own population, what does that make you? To me, you are just as responsible as he is, and I won't stop hoping that you'll be hunted down & hanged.

It isn't that significant. The Revolutionary war saw a couple more thousand dead than this war.
If 2000 dead aren't important, why the fuck was 3000 dead important enough to start two wars, massacre countless civillians & devatsate 2 countries in the process?

You need help. Help or a lifelong prison sentence.

If 2000 dead aren't important, why the fuck was 3000 dead important enough to start two wars, massacre countless civillians & devatsate 2 countries in the process?


TOUCHE!
:p

Pffft, 2000 dead, big whoop. Yes, that is 2,000 families crushed with the lost of loved ones, but in comparison to Iraqi dead it's nothing. They've lost 26 thousand. But compared to Iraqi's BEFORE the war, it's nothing still. Over a million died then. But compared to WWII, that's ALSO nothing. 60 million people died in that one. But that's nothing compared to...

The point is, guys, people die. We've had far more people die in wars before. I mean far more. Yes, around 30,000 people have died in this war. But, compared to most other wars fought, that is sadly a small amount. That does not mean we should be indifferent about these deaths, but it's not as if we should be claiming that this is the greatest human catastrophe of all time.

Pffft, 2000 dead, big whoop. Yes, that is 2,000 families crushed with the lost of loved ones, but in comparison to Iraqi dead it's nothing. They've lost 26 thousand. But compared to Iraqi's BEFORE the war, it's nothing still. Over a million died then. But compared to WWII, that's ALSO nothing. 60 million people died in that one. But that's nothing compared to...
The death count of any conflict should be overwhelmingly important. If you think something is important enough to warrent killing people, then when do you stop? Is it important enough to loose 2000 of your own citizens? Important enough to loose 250 million of your own citizens?

And how do you estimate whether something is "good" for your target? Will this be the "right thing" to do against Iraq if 30000 civillians die? Will it still be "the right thing" to do to them if 300000 die?
When do you stop? How can you ever not consider the deathcount when your actions are killing people?

Pffft, 2000 dead, big whoop. Yes, that is 2,000 families crushed with the lost of loved ones, but in comparison to Iraqi dead it's nothing. They've lost 26 thousand. But compared to Iraqi's BEFORE the war, it's nothing still. Over a million died then. But compared to WWII, that's ALSO nothing. 60 million people died in that one. But that's nothing compared to...

The point is, guys, people die. We've had far more people die in wars before. I mean far more. Yes, around 30,000 people have died in this war. But, compared to most other wars fought, that is sadly a small amount. That does not mean we should be indifferent about these deaths, but it's not as if we should be claiming that this is the greatest human catastrophe of all time.

Well said Lightning Star. Well said indeed

Why bother discussing a useless topic like the 2000th American war victim? Man, what a waste of time. Go do something useful with your lives, like getting a job or something. The only thing I have seen here in this thread are people who are all talking to a big brick wall. Neither of the sides are listening, and both sides are all convinced about their own interpretation of the world, and their reality is binding and everybody else must their way of thinking, or else he/she's a Bill O'Reilly or a liberal. Both are lousy insults too but that's not the issue.

Way to discuss things people, keep it up I love it :)

You're right. The purpose of this thread is to vent frustration, not engage in open-minded debate. If people were truly motivated to do something, they wouldn't be posting in anonymous forums.

It's all about the entertainment factor.

Well said Lightning Star. Well said indeed

Didn't you say you were done here?

Liar.

*lights thread on fire*

Well, you know what people? my dad is in Iraq right now. He's Special Forces, 5th Group. He's my hero. any of you who think this war is wrong, ask a soldier like him. As if you would bother....
Trying to see from your point of view but can't get my head that far up my butt.
Guess what? My dad - and his team - wholeheartedly support the war. Isn't it enough to go after Saddam when he's opressed his people for years?
I doubt any of you people will read this, but if you do, just think about it.

P.S. This is something my mom sent my dad...
Jason, We love you and we appreciate what you are doing over there. I can’t wait for you to come home even though I know it won’t be long before you are away from us again! God Bless you and your team. May God give you what you need when you need for His Glory…

Well, you know what people? my dad is in Iraq right now. He's Special Forces, 5th Group. He's my hero. any of you who think this war is wrong, ask a soldier like him. As if you would bother....
Trying to see from your point of view but can't get my head that far up my butt.
Guess what? My dad - and his team - wholeheartedly support the war. Isn't it enough to go after Saddam when he's opressed his people for years?
I doubt any of you people will read this, but if you do, just think about it.

P.S. This is something my mom sent my dad...
Jason, We love you and we appreciate what you are doing over there. I can’t wait for you to come home even though I know it won’t be long before you are away from us again! God Bless you and your team. May God give you what you need when you need for His Glory…

Good for you.

Well, you know what people? my dad is in Iraq right now. He's Special Forces, 5th Group. He's my hero. any of you who think this war is wrong, ask a soldier like him. As if you would bother....
Trying to see from your point of view but can't get my head that far up my butt.
Guess what? My dad - and his team - wholeheartedly support the war. Isn't it enough to go after Saddam when he's opressed his people for years?
I doubt any of you people will read this, but if you do, just think about it.

P.S. This is something my mom sent my dad...
Jason, We love you and we appreciate what you are doing over there. I can’t wait for you to come home even though I know it won’t be long before you are away from us again! God Bless you and your team. May God give you what you need when you need for His Glory…
I know some soldiers. I know some of them who don't agree with the war, but finght anyways, because it is their duty, and they signed up to do it. I can support the soldiers without supporting the war.

I know some soldiers. I know some of them who don't agree with the war, but finght anyways, because it is their duty, and they signed up to do it. I can support the soldiers without supporting the war.
Ditto.

I know some soldiers. I know some of them who don't agree with the war, but finght anyways, because it is their duty, and they signed up to do it. I can support the soldiers without supporting the war.

I have friends and relatives that served in Northern Ireland.

Some of the soldiers were glad we were there, some opposed it vehemently. Of those that opposed, they still served, for a variety of reasons:

Opinions varied wildly... some were there purely because they were following orders, some because they believed it was patriotic, some were there just for the money, some because it served an ideal of duty or honour, some because they believed they were serving some 'bigger picture' of freedom or unity, and SOME were there because they LIKED the idea of killing people.

Isn't it enough to go after Saddam when he's opressed his people for years?
I find this comment interesting, especially after viewing your Nation State homepage (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=killer_mckitty).

The Rogue Nation of Killer Mckitty is a huge, safe nation, remarkable for its punitive income tax rates. Its hard-nosed, cynical population of 531 million are kept under strict control by the oppressive government, which measures its success by the nation's GDP and refers to individual citizens as "human resources."

Civil Rights:
Unheard Of

Political Freedoms:
Outlawed

Have a nice day now ya hear?:eek:

Didn't you say you were done here?

Liar.
Yeah, he is "done", and has relegated himself to the position of cheerleader.:)

Actually, I think it's more interesting that an American, promoting military intervention, doesn't scream & yell about his/her country's role in enabling Saddam to size power & brutalise the Iraqi citizens.

I mean, if this person feels that military aggession against a foring sovering nation is warrented, hust because the regime does something to it's own citizens, isn't it logical to also wage war on the nation that enabled the regime to do so?

In short: when are you gonna kill your government, Killer Mckitty?

Well, you know what people? my dad is in Iraq right now. He's Special Forces, 5th Group. He's my hero. any of you who think this war is wrong, ask a soldier like him. As if you would bother....
Trying to see from your point of view but can't get my head that far up my butt.
Guess what? My dad - and his team - wholeheartedly support the war. Isn't it enough to go after Saddam when he's opressed his people for years?
I doubt any of you people will read this, but if you do, just think about it.

P.S. This is something my mom sent my dad...
Jason, We love you and we appreciate what you are doing over there. I can’t wait for you to come home even though I know it won’t be long before you are away from us again! God Bless you and your team. May God give you what you need when you need for His Glory…

You should be very proud to have a father such as that.

I am proud to live in a nation where somebody is self-less enough to make that sacrifice. Thank you for sharing your dad's point of view.

Actually, I think it's more interesting that an American, promoting military intervention, doesn't scream & yell about his/her country's role in enabling Saddam to size power & brutalise the Iraqi citizens.

I mean, if this person feels that military aggession against a foring sovering nation is warrented, hust because the regime does something to it's own citizens, isn't it logical to also wage war on the nation that enabled the regime to do so?

In short: when are you gonna kill your government, Killer Mckitty?

By that same line of reasoning, shouldn't we wage war on Germany, France, and the entire UN for wanting to allow Saddam to continue to commit genocide?

Or perhaps we should blame the Dahli Lama. Or the pope. Or perhaps you...

EDIT: By the way, are you trying to condone the mass genocide of the kurds? The whole "what it does to it's citizens" bit was a little extreme....

By that same line of reasoning, shouldn't we wage war on Germany, France, and the entire UN for wanting to allow Saddam to continue to commit genocide?

Or perhaps we should blame the Dahli Lama. Or the pope. Or perhaps you...

EDIT: By the way, are you trying to condone the mass genocide of the kurds? The whole "what it does to it's citizens" bit was a little extreme....
I'm saying this line of reasoning is bullshit and has no root in reality. US, UK & France enabled Saddam to do all the sick shit he did & profitted from it immensely.

America was instrumental for enabling Saddam to size power over Iraq. Without massive American monetary & military support, he couldn't have done it. You trained his army. You gave him WMD. You bankrolled his twisted regime. You trained his counterterrorism police forces (who're the ones that killed the majority of the normal civillian Iraqis). You payed the motherfucker to wage war & commit atrocities.

And now you defend waging war on him for doing those things?

Excuse me while I go puke, but you make me sick.

I'm saying this line of reasoning is bullshit and has no root in reality. US, UK & France enabled Saddam to do all the sick shit he did & profitted from it immensely.

America was instrumental for enabling Saddam to size power over Iraq. Without massive American monetary & military support, he couldn't have done it. You trained his army. You gave him WMD. You bankrolled his twisted regime. You trained his counterterrorism police forces (who're the ones that killed the majority of the normal civillian Iraqis). You payed the motherfucker to wage war & commit atrocities.

And now you defend waging war on him for doing those things?

Excuse me while I go puke, but you make me sick.

So are you saying that the mass genocide of the kurds is acceptable?

If you say yes, then sir, you'd make any rational person sick.

So are you saying that the mass genocide of the kurds is acceptable?

If you say yes, then sir, you'd make any rational person sick.
How on Dog's green Earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

I said America is as much to blame for it as Saddam's regime. If that's your justification for starting a war, why don't you start one at home first?

By the way, are you trying to condone the mass genocide of the kurds?
And who is responsible for this genocide, Iraq or Iran?

And in any event the US turned a blind eye to this and the fact that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.

The US maintained diplomatic ties with Iraq up until Iraq invaded Kuwait.

BTW, which US President took Iraq of the US list of terrorist nations. In case you are struggling for the answer, it was Ronald Reagan and who was Reagan's V.P.? None other than George Herbert Walker Bush.

Of interest:

US to Hussein: WMD A-OK (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/scheer1230)

Ironically, the United States supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.

I imagine that there are a few highly placed Americans who are relieved to see that Saddam is going to be tried by Iraq, rather than a world court.

So are you saying that the mass genocide of the kurds is acceptable?

No. But if you must hang the one who did the gassing, you should also hang the one who made said gassing possible by giving gas weapons to him too. Guess who that was?

Accountability is a nasty thing isn't it?

No. But if you must hang the one who did the gassing, you should also hang the one who made said gassing possible by giving gas weapons to him too. Guess who that was?

Accountability is a nasty thing isn't it?
But easily defeated with "staggering hypocrisy from gods own country (tm)".

But easily defeated with "staggering hypocrisy from gods own country (tm)".

Well duh, just look at how things are. Violence in schools. Blame video games. Pre-marital sex. Blame movies. Drove your car into a brick wall. Blame the automobile industry. Spill hot coffee on your lap. Blame the makers of said coffee. Stick your hand in an on blender. Blame the blender company. Not satisfied with your life. Blame Canada.

Whatever happened to personal accountability?

Whatever happened to personal accountability?
Jesus, the media, corporate-funded politicians, social alienation, lack of access to information.

Well duh, just look at how things are. Violence in schools. Blame video games. Pre-marital sex. Blame movies. Drove your car into a brick wall. Blame the automobile industry. Spill hot coffee on your lap. Blame the makers of said coffee. Stick your hand in an on blender. Blame the blender company. Not satisfied with your life. Blame Canada.

Whatever happened to personal accountability?

Went the way of the dinosaur, I'm afraid. This all kind of accelerated when we elected a president "who smoked marijuana, but didn't inhale". A really freaking sweet role model 'ol Dollar Bill was.

Ironically, the United States supported Iraq when it possessed and used weapons of mass destruction and invaded it when it didn't.



Guess you hadn't heard about the truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just immediately prior to the U.S. invasion.

Guess you hadn't heard about the truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just immediately prior to the U.S. invasion.

Which doesn't prove anything other than someone wanted something out of Iraq. For all we know, it could have been Saddam sending off his ill gotten loot to Syria so he could have a life of luxury there. It could even have been a convoy of porno tapes if we want to look at odd possibilities.

It really doesn't prove that it there were WMDs. Only people grasping at straws claim it to be without definitive proof.

Guess you hadn't heard about the truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just immediately prior to the U.S. invasion.
Lets just call it propaganda?

1. There was no definite confirmation that these "convoys" contained WMD.

2. UN inspectors had been in Iraq for 5 months prior to the invasion and they were not finding any WMD. That is none as in nada, zip, ziltch, zero, despite hundreds of inspections of suspect sites, including presidential palaces.

3. If YOU were Saddam and you had WMD and you knew for certain that the US was going to invade your country, would you send away your defensive capabilities? Not bloody likely.

4. Unless you can provide more detail about these so called "truck convoys" and their cargo your discussion point is meaningless.

Guess you hadn't heard about the truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just immediately prior to the U.S. invasion.


Of course we heard about it. Funny thing is that this "information" came from the same people who fucked up all the rest of the intel. Soooooooooooooo..... is this "convoy" based on the same certainty as those milk trucks parked outside normal bunkers that Powell insisted were containment vehicles around WMD sites?


Sorry, but the existance of those convoys or their contents was never, ever substantiated. But hey, if you think that the military can handle ANOTHER occupation right now too look for more mythical WMD, then go right ahead thinking that.....

Well, you know what people? my dad is in Iraq right now. He's Special Forces, 5th Group. He's my hero. any of you who think this war is wrong, ask a soldier like him. As if you would bother....
Tell your dad that I fully support him. I was attached to 5th SFG for awhile in Vietnam when I was a counterinsurgency team commander. Great group of men; very professional and competent. Tell him I said keep up the good work, there are lots and lots of people who support him and his mission.

Guess you hadn't heard about the truck convoys leaving Iraq for Syria just immediately prior to the U.S. invasion.

I've heard about truck convoys from Iraq to Syria, just prior to the invasion... but I never saw anything concrete.

I certainly have yet to see anything to prove that any claims of trucks leaving Iraq with WMD's are anything more than sleight of hand.

What's worse than that is using Iraq's oil industry to rebuild from the war. That means they're paying to fix the shit we blew up. If I were an Iraqi that would seriously piss me off.
You mean like al the so called Terrorists being pissed off?